A place to discuss, disagree, and vent your opinions on issues related to government, terrorism, and homeland security. This is the home of the "Stupid Awards" program.

Part 2 - The Benghazi Attack by Militants, and the Death of the US Ambassador to Libya

The attack on the 'diplomatic activity' or 'diplomatic facility', depending on who you read in the press, was a major disaster for the United States Government. The ambassador, Chris Stevens, was killed, along with several other members of his staff, and protectors. That alone is a significant embarassment for the administration, simply because no US Ambassador had been killed on a duty station for a number of years. What followed, however, both in the Government, and in the media, was an even greater disaster, and vastly expanded the importance of the event, in the minds of the Congress, and a large percentage of the American people. The timeline, and the date the event happened, on September 11, 2012, the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 bombings in new York and Washington, reopened old wounds for a lot of people, and happened in the waning days of a presidential election campaign.

At first, the administration tied the Attack on the 'diplomatic facility' to similar events going on in Cairo, over a short film, created by an Arab in the US, which defamed Muhammad, something you simply don't do in the current activist Islamic world, without expecting repercussions. if the film had been the actual cause of the attack in Benghazi, then the evolving story would have, in my mind, been quite different in its outcome. But the film was not the cause of the attack, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), for one, knew it almost immediately, as did the Embassy staff in Tripoli, and other intelligence agencies. These agencies did not yet know which particular group was responsible; but the filming of the attack, and its wide distribution almost in real time, certainly should have shown that this was no mirror demonstration for what was occurring in cairo, and elsewhere, over the film.In addition, the film in question, "Innocence of Muslims", had not really been distributed by its creator; relying instead on a trailer, a brief advertisement, published on YouTube, a popular video sharing site. other than one private showing, there is no evidence the film was ever shown to general public in a theatre, much less widely distributed, except after the fact, when the media started asking about it. Nonetheless, the administration grasped this trailer on YouTube as its reasoning for the attack in Benghazi, and started spinning the story on the networks, using Susan Rice, the UN Ambassador, as its messenger. She appeared on the major Sunday network news shows, and spinned a tale of reaction to the trailer, even though, by then, the administration was well aware that something else had happened in Benghazi. Later, the administration defended her appearances, saying through Jay Carney, the White house Spokesman, that she simply said what the intelligence community told her to say. Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, later reiterated that story during her congressional appearances, all after the election was concluded. Clinton somehow concocted major illness to prevent her earlier appearance before the House and Senate committees.

OK, so we have heard the story on virtually every network about Benghazi. The real question is does the administration's response, and particularly that of the President himself, rise to a question of impeachment? Just as important, does the situation, as it evolved over reporting on Benghazi rise to the level of scandal, or is it simply what may be a gross mismanagement of a sad, and horrible, event.There are several parts to those answers, and they revolve, in turn, about several other questions, which have, to date, not received very adequate answers.

Question #1 - Where was the President, what was he doing, and how did he lead the effort to protect our diplomats in Benghazi?

Question #2 - Why did the administration, knowing what was occurring shortly after the attack started, not denounce it, send aid, and, clearly indicate what was happening?

Question #3 - Why not bring the Congress, and the committees into the loop, make this a clear case of terrorism, and fashion a response equal to the crime, with bipartisan American support?

The answers to these questions are needed to see the extend of what some have called a coverup, and others have called 'high crimes and misdemeaners'.

Starting with Question #1, Several reports, from Jay Carney, the press spokesman, Leon Pannetta, then Secretary of Defense, and others, are very circumspect on the actual location of the president the evening of the attack. Carney, in one of his press briefings, noted that the 'President was kept fully informed', but did not indicate an actual location, even though asked several times. Pannetta indicated in his statement that he notified the President 'early in the attack', but then did not speak to him again until the next morning. These reports are in stark contrast to the efforts made by the White House, during the killing of Bin-Laden to show a president 'In-Charge', and in the White House situation room, surrounded by key aides.

Now, in deference to the President, he is surrounded by aides and senior associates who are quite capable of taking decisive action, while keeping the President 'in the loop'. That may have happened here; the President himself has not spoken directly to the issue, leading others to make assumptions about his involvement, or lack of it, during the events which occurred. Conversely, situations such as occurred in Benghazi, are ripe opportunities for a President to show his leadership, wisdom, and willpower. Politically, in a major election campaign, and given Obama's previous record on getting into the media as often as possible, it seems amazing that, in the situation, he is clearly a silent partner to the events. At least, it appears so from the reports thus far. However, is the lack of public statements by the President a cause for censure, or even impeachment? No, it is not, at least for impeachment. However, situations such as this can easily cause a dramatic shift in the willingness of the media to give passes in the future for similar actions. The President should have been out in front of his team, condemning the attacks, SENDING WHATEVER ASSISTANCE HE COULD MUSTER, demanding the Libyans do the same. As it turned out, there were special forces available, although in small numbers, who could have been placed in harms way quickly. That is their training, and whoever the Commander was in the AFRICOM chain that denied approval for them to even try should be retired--and quickly.

Question #2 is an outgrowth of the first question. This question goes more deeply to efforts of the administration to explain the attack, then try to move beyond it to other issues. in this case, as in the case of the leadership role of the President, it appears the White house cxame up remaredly short. The answer to the question, however, is much more complex. Historically, and attack on US facilities, home or abroad, is an issue dealt with directly by the White House, and that generally has meant involving the President in the decision-making process. It is nearly impossible to believe the president, absent some other major crisis at the time, would not be the prime leader of the analysis of the event, and the US response. Is it imaginable that harry Truman would have left the A-bomb decision to the Secretary of War? Perhaps John kennedy could have left the decision to blockage Cuba to others, or Lyndon Johnson could simply have told the Secretary of Defense to do what he wished following the Turner Joy incident, which propelled us into Vietnam. Using that logic, Bush 41, and Bill Clinton could have kept a lower profile during the earlier terrorist strikes in Khobar Towers, the events in Somalia, or a host of other events which cost American lives. Bush 43 might have invoked 'plausible deniability' and let the Joint Chiefs decide to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.

That's not the way we do business. We elect a President to become the ACTIVE LEADER of the Republic, and make the hard decisions for which he was elected. The American people have not, historically, accepted the view that 'others' are responsible for what are normally presidential decisions. If that is the case, and i believe it is, then how do we assess the role of the President in the Benghazi attack, and the subsequent changes to the 'public story'? Even more important, why did he not act 'Presidential', instead leaving to his subordinates the public role in the responses over the days following the attack, and after the ambassador had died with his men in Benghazi? Looking at the situation as fairly as possible, the President did identify the attack early as a 'terrorist' attack. One would assume he based that statement, either on his own heart, or on information provided by the CIA, however it was transmitted to him. It did not matter at that point if the individual group could be identified, but it did matter that it be identified as something more than an informal, but violent, response to a film, most people knew little about.

Moreover, it appears from the message traffic released, and discussed by Carney at several press conferences, that the early official response was to condemn and arrest the film-maker, and get the film off the Internet, since it had offended the Muslim world. Between the State Department, which had quickly started the process of coming out with a unified 'version' of the events, and the CIA, which had differing opinions of the cause and effect of the attack, a statement was prepared and 'someone' decided it would be Ambassador Susan Rice who would deliver that message to the public, through the major Sunday morning news opinion programs. Regrettably, what was given Rice to deliver what dead wrong, and at least part of the administration knew it at the time she delivered her version of the story.

Carney, at the White House, was quick to tell reporters that the White House had no part in gthe statement, other than to change one word in the statement, and that the intelligence community had taken the lead in providing information to Ambassador Rice. The real questions remaining unanswered to this day, are who finally approved the statement; did the President approve of it; and why did she take information 'from the intelligence community' for her presentation, without vetting it herself with the State Department (her boss, officially) and the local Foreign service personnel on the scene? It would be incredible, given the events occuring, that the White house was not directing foreign policy in this instance, but rather reacting to it, at best, or keeping isolated from it, at worst. Either alternative does not speak well for the leadership of the nation. Again, of course, the question here is if this lack of leadership rises to the level of 'high crimes and misdemeaners', or something else. I will argue, for the sake of argument, that failure to lead is stupidity, but not necessarily an impeachable offense.

In terms of Question #3, the lack of leadership at the White house did not extend to the media, in my view. The major media organizations simply took what carney had said, and published it as facts, without any effort to determine, even from European and other Middle Eastern sources, whether what was said in the press briefings was accurate. Throughout the days that followed, and through the election itself, the media generally lambasted the Republican candidates for making this a 'political issue', while it was much more than a political issue -- it was a leadership issue, and one that should have shown a significant flaw in the Administration, and particularly the President. The administration spent the greater part of the campaign trying to smear the opposition, deny that al-Qaeda was still strong, and that the US was still very much at risk from organized terrorism. Conversely, the Republicans never were able to adequately define their concerns, nor were they able to elicit the truth from the White House. Both sides have a great deal of blame in making the attack, and its aftermath, a national disgrace; the White house by denying its importance, and the Republicans by failing to focus on the very real lack of leadership an response by the Administration.

So, what do we have here, in this, the first of the important 'scandals' of the Obama Administration? We have, I believe, lack of effective leadership, disdain for the oppostiin party, and a disdain for getting the truth to the American public. Are these impeachable offenses? By themselves, probably not. Only time will tell, however, if this attack, and it events, will tip the scales together with other events toward a decision to impeach.

Let's look first as some of the more prevalent complaints about President Obama, and the varying views on why he should be impeached for committing the actions described in them. Right now, it appears there are five 'popular' areas, which have caused varying groups to demand the impeachment of the President. These include (Not necessarily in any order): 1- The Benghazi attack by militants, and the death of the US Ambassador to Libya 2- The actions of the Internal Revenue Service, with regard to processing exemption status applications for conservative, and other interest groups 3- 'Secret' investigations of reporters, without providing protection for First Amendment Rights 4- Committing 'unconstitutional acts' relative to Federal appointments, which require confirmation by the United States Senate 5- Disregard for, and disdain of, the US Constitution in general by the Obama Administration, and its principal agency officers

That is a pretty heavy list, and there are others, but these seem to be the most prevalent, and those which have excited groups all along the political spectrum, from liberal to conservative, from mainstream to splinter group, and across a number of age and ethnic groups. We'll devote an article to each of these, looking at a range of sources, hoping to be as 'balanced' as possible, and, at some point where it seems logical, make a statement on my views on whether the 'evidence' supports impeachment of the President.

I have adopted a couple of rules for myself in the search for these articles.

First, I will cite what is out there, and try to present as broad a spectrum of comments as is possible. In some cases, it may be that a particular group or segment of the electorate supports a view; where that happens, I will try to find an opposing view, so that we can assess both sides of the argument. There is no magic or pre-determination to this; if someone has another source that leads to information on which to make an assessment, please provide it. Second, I will try to stay among the references which relate to the topic, are not at some extreme fringe which may defy logic, and avoid as well the more ethereal suggestions in favor of more reasoned discussions. 'Reasoned discussions' can be on either side of the topic, and can even provide a passioned argument, as long as that argument presents information which may add value to the discussion. Third, in each case, I will give up to seven days for comments, impacting on any discussion, so that the summary of the arguments includes both sides.

If this works for you, please wade in; I only ask that comments stay on the discussion at hand, and not stray into innuendo and insults, which have no part in a reasoned discussion.Our first stop, in the next short article, will be Benghazi, and its aftermath.JT

There seem to be a lot of questions emanating from the press, the blogs, the TV and Radio media, and others, about the potential for Barack Obama being impeached over the next year to 18 months. We have heard those messages to the public before, and, as in the past, one has to question well the potential act of impeaching and removing a President of the United. States. Only two men in history have been impeached by the US House of Representatives, and the charges forward to the US Senate for trial. Both of these men, Andrew Johnson, the 17th President, and William Clinton, the 42nd President, were retained in office until the end of their term; in neither case could the overwhelming majority of the Senate agree to their removal. A third President, Richard M. Nixon, was charged by the House of Representatives, but resigned before the charges were brought to the Senate for trial. Impeachment of a president is a momentous task; the Constitution of the United States, in Article 2, Section 4, says simply: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. Article 1, Section 2, prescribes that the House of Representatives has the sole right to bring impreachment proceedings, and Article 1, Section 3 prescribes trial in the US Senate, and the penalties for conviction. That article states: "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present." "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

So, the process seems relatively simple. The House decides that something President has done (We will limit our discussion to the President only, although you can see it also applies to other 'civil officers of the United States' as well), given the list of impeachable offenses detailed in Article 2, merits impeachment and removal from office. The House creates a set of charges, much like a grand jury indictment, and vote to send those charges to the Senate for trial. The Senate acts like a court, with the Chief Justice of the United States as presiding judge; hearing testimony from both the representatives of the House, and the President, and decides on guilt of innocence. If two-thirds of the members present in the Senate agree with the charges, the President is removed from office, and, presumably, the Vice-President then becomes president, as was the case when Richard Nixon resigned, and Gerald Ford assumed the office. Removal from office is just that; the Senate can remove the President, and he is then barred from future Federal office, but cannot exact any further punishment. However, local, state or Federal trials could exact punishment in addition to the removal, or even if the President is not removed.In Clinton and Nixon's cases, courts determined to bar then from paractice as an attorney, although neither were conviced by the Senate. In both of those cases, the men voluntarily turned in their licenses, to avoid more formal bar action. That all sounds so easy, doesn't it?

In actuality, unless a President has been caught red-handed committing treason, or some other 'High Crime or Misdemeanor' which any citizen would find so repugnant that impeachment is a logical result, finding a President guilty is, in reality, a case of what most would call high political drama. A number of presidents have been subjected to calls for their impeachment, and for a lot of supposed' crimes' that are, in more real sense, acts of political retribution for disagreements on the direction of the country, than for 'high crimes or misdemeanors', whatever those terms really mean. Impeachment is generally a political act, and should be considered in that perspective, since, almost universally, that is the perspective of those who are making the charges to begin with, in the greatest of American political dramas.

Over the next several articles, we will look at the major complaints against Barack Obama, and try to make a reasoned assessment of whether or not his 'political crimes' rise to the level of these so-called 'High Crimes and Misdemeaners', as they were understood by the framers of the Constitution.

There are no preconceptions here; as far as I am concerned, Barack Obama is my President, and, while I have often criticized both he and his administration for some of the actions they have taken, I have not tried to determine if my views could rise to a personal feeling that the President should be impeached. Rather, I want to take the journey to look at what is known of the facts, and apply them as best I can to see if there are, at least in my mind, impeachable offenses, or whether they are simply political disagreements.

Anybody who has ever seen Peter Pan, or read the book, must surely have wondered at least once what it would be like to live in a world where one doesn't have to ever grow up. An interesting thought.

Well, the opportunity presents itself virtually every day in the Nation's Capital -- Washington, DC -- where just about every part of Barrie's novel, or was it a satire, have come true.

First, of course, is Peter Pan. Look back on the presidential press conferences, and tell me that Jay Carney, the White House Spokesman doesn't think, and act, like Peter Pan. In fact, he tilts windmills, like Don Quixote; tells the truth about situations like Pinocchio, and has about as much charisma and believability as Igor, in Young Frankenstein. (That might be an insult to Igor). Other spokesmen have been caught over the years lying for their president, but Carney simply creates truth as he chooses to see it, without any real adult perspective, and then uses insults with the media to drive over his point. The media, in turn, sits on every word he says, as if it is actually the truth, and not just something they want to think is the truth.

Unfortunately, of course, he can't be Peter Pan, since his boss, Barack Obama, thinks he is, and runs around the country with a wooden sword, chasing the 'bad' people, and trying to convince the American People he is their leader. Peter Pan became the leader of the young people because he EARNED THEIR RESPECT; Obama goes in too many directions, and creates too much political noise to even take the time trying to gain respect. Perhaps he does not care.

Who else could be Tinker Bell than Michelle Obama. She really does try to spread around the pixie dust, in the hopes that a bit of it will fall on people, and they will believe in her husband, Barack Obama, the President. Like Tinkerbell, Mrs. Obama is well-educated, has a lot of common sense, and flits from place to place with a very purposeful agenda.

Snee, the First Mate, is completely Joe Biden, the Vice President. years ago, when asked about the importance of the office, one of his predecessors likened the office to a bucket of warm spit. Biden has let the warmth out of the cuspidor, and, in fact, denied that it is even a cuspidor.

What better group of sailors on the pirate ship than the rag tag crowd that calls itself the Cabinet. Each has proven to be a failure in something, failed to be elected to something, or has well off base ideas on running the country. All seem to have been selected for their disdain of the electorate. What better group to be surrounded by alligators, just waiting for a meal. Captain Hook, their leader and protector seems to be a lot like Eric Holder, the man who could not make it outside Government, was nearly indicted for malfeasance in office in a previous administration, and has a tremendous disdain for the law. Just like our protagonist-in-chief, Captain Hook.

On the other side of the argument is the majority of the House of Representatives, and the Minority in the Senate, who act a lot like the kids in the trees, who want to have their way without growing up. Of course, the Democrats in both Houses are no better, if not worse.

I tried very hard to find places for Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid. Finally, I decided that Pelosi was probably one of the alligators, and Reid was irrelevant. That takes cares of the major players.

When will Washington grow up, and begin to lead, rather than give pain to the people?

In interviews this week, the same man who said at the Correspondant's Dinner, "I'm not the same wide-eyed socialist I was four years ago", and his attorney-general, have come out supporting citizenship as a 'civil right' for the thousands of illegal aliens in the country. Now that's the way a true socialist solves a problem--make it go away by law.

Seriously folks, how much more of our liberties are going to be pissed away by this guy, and his minions, as they pander to every minority, and special-interest group around the country. While he is at it, the so-called 'red line' across which Syria had to pass by using chemical weap0ons, to get US action, has been passed, and his answer is to ask for more proof. I guess this is the 'red line plus' or something. He is making the US seem to be a joke across the world, and that is destroying our reputation, and our ability to respond, if it were really needed.

All the while, the Congress is hopelessly deadlocked on irrelevant issues, none of which even closely approach the importance of the erosion of democracy and liberty in the United States. Instead, they want to argue on small changes to the tax code, and how many bullets DHS is buying. Gun control has gone the way it always has--down the shute, as other, more 'pressing' issues, such as so-called immigration reform take center stage, and the Senate finally realized their contributions from the NRA were drying up. Unfortunately, their idea of reform is really not reform at all-but simply another way to call illegals by some other term that will make people forget they are here ILLEGALLY.

WHEN WILL AMERICANS WAKE UP AND SEE THAT THEIR ROSES HAVE WILTED, AND ALL THAT IS LEFT IS THE THORNS??????

The carnage of the Boston Marathon will remain seared into people's minds for a very long time; healing is not an easy thing. Fortunately, people do move on, but they will remember, and that is, perhaps, the most important lesson from the bombing along the route of the Boston Marathon.

Unfortunately, it is nearly impossible, either to predict where another such disaster will occur, or to prevent it in advance. Those who decide to bomb, maim, and kill, have their minds set, and they don't necessarily have the same thought processes exhibited by the majority of people in their daily lives. Their actions are often spontaneous in origin, and their minds become as one channel--moving ahead, despite any obstacles, to complete the task they have decided will earn them a place in history.

One of the most interesting pieces of information I have found, in the years of my writing and studying terrorism, is the sense of asynchronous thought--the lack of consistency or predictability--that seems to surround these people, and makes their crimes a new, and different experience each time they occur. They might chose, as did the two brothers in Boston, a major event, or they may go to some smaller community, and simply go on a rampage. Most then have the courtesy to kill themselves, rather than face the police. Some think they go to heaven as martyrs; others don't believe in heaven, and simply think they have earned their place among those who have protested what they believe is injustice. Whatever the reasons, the bottom line is that they are killers--murderers, not assassins, and deserve whatever the ultimate penalty society prescribes for their actions.

The problem here is that we live in a free society--one where people, such as the two brothers in Boston, can travel freely, buy their goods wherever they choose, and normally avoid detection, because they have committeed no overt crime. In the US, people have become accustomed to their freedoms, and have let down their guard--something these killers know, and use as a support for their actions.

Here in the US, we need to wake up, and begin to be more observant about our surroundings. We need to report packages we see on the streets unattended, and quickly. We need to recognize we are partners with law enforcement, because they cannot do the job in a modern society alone. We need to emulate London, Israel, and other countries, who are also free, but who take their security personally--not leaving it to someone else. Until we change our culture of complacency, we will probably continue to see incidents, such as Boston, and shake our collective heads wondering why it is happening to us.

New volume on terrorism, and one on Internet e-mail scams to be published in 2013

Two new volumes, one on terrorism, and one on Internet e-mail scams, are scheduled for publication in 2013.

Twilight in Waterside, another of Tieso's volumes on terrorism, is a change from previous scripts in his widening library of books. This volume speaks to the worldwide drug trade, being supported by the same terrorist-led organizations he has previouslt described, but this time with a twist. These terrorists want to bring a new, more powerfrul narcotic drug into Norfolk, home of the US Atlantic Fleet, and they want the help of the East Coast Mob in doing it.

"This volme speaks to the more common efforts of the Interagency Terrorism Task Forces, led by the FBI, and supported by a wide range of other Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. People need to know that not every terrorist wears a scarf and flowing robes; far more common are those in business suits and homburg hats. We show that in a very vivid way in this book," said Tieso, in his press release.

Twilight in Waterside should be out in late June, early July, 2013, and available from Amazon, and other major booksellers. A Kindle edition is also planned later in the fall.

Another one of Tieso's long time passions has been collecting copies of the various Internet e-mail scam messages; those from the original Nigieran '419' -type scams, and many of the newer ones, which all have a common purpose -- to separate people from their money, their identity, and their personal information.

This book, Internet Fraud: The Stupidity of Some; the Intelligence of Others in the Modern World, covers the world in showing the various types of frauds that show up in the Internet, and especially over e-mail messaging. Each of the messages reproduced in the book was received by Tieso, who has collected much useful information on how to avoid getting burned by the scam artists.

The book is not intended to be all-inclusive; other websites, and authors have tried to do that. What Tieso does is give the reader as sense of what the messages are like, and how to avoid getting stung by them. This volume will be out in early May, 2013, and available as well, over Amazon.com, in both both print and Kindle editions.

Others of Tieso's book, also available, include, Bernie Minihan's Dilemma, For the Sake of Terror, and Night Chill, all on international terrorism, and Avoiding Fale Mirrors, a widely acclaimed business management text. All are available on Amazon.com, in print and Kindle versions, and available as well through major booksellers.

Whereas, John Pistole, Director, the US Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has shown unbridled and sensless stupidity in allowing knives onboard America's air fleet, despite the protestations of the airline and flying professionals, and many of his own TSA professionals (all three that we know of in the TSA), and

Whereas, John Pistole, Director, the US Transportation Security Administration(TSA) has shown significant uncaring about the incident in Newark in February, where one of his own inspectors brought a bomb successfully through multiple layers of so-called 'security' at the Newark International Airport, and,

Whereas, John Pistole, Director, US Transportation Security Agency (TSA) has consistently shown disdain for the American travelling public,

NOW THEREFORE DOES MINIHANSWORLD.COM award its Stupid Award for 2013 to John Pistole for his devotion to the Obama Administration's overall degradation of US flight safety, and everything it stands for at the expense of the American Public. This award, presented on March 17, 2013, comes with loser stick-man,

The historic quote from "A Tale of Two Cities, by Charles Dickens, "These are the best of times; these are the worst of times", certainly appears to be true for the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). over the past weeks, Pistole, the Director, and his staff of incompetants, and political syncophants, have been busy making incredible decisions, such as those below.

What TSA should be doing... Even the usually ultra-left wing Huffington Post, that darling of the Administration's media horde, is starting to publish criticism of the agency. One recent article by their would-be writer, Christopher Elliott, provided an interesting list, which I exerpt here for you:

"Decommission all full-body scanners. The technology is unproven and potentially dangerous. The expense can't be justified to the American taxpayer."

"Fix the screening process. Every airline passenger should be checked in a way that is non-invasive, doesn't involve harmful radiation and respects their civil rights and the U.S. Constitution. We know the current system doesn't do that. Let's find something that does."

"Restructure the agency.The TSA needs to trim its $8-billion-a-year budget by eliminating a vast layer of ineffective middle management and reducing the size of its force, which is often referred to as "Thousands Standing Around.""

"Retrain TSA's workforce.Frontline TSA agents like to see themselves as the last line of defense against terrorism. They aren't. Rather, they are the face of the federal government, and at the moment, it's not a good one. Agents need basic customer-service training, and they need to be aware of the civil rights and disabilities concerns of passengers."

That's some list for a news organization that normally supports the heavy hand of obama socialism. Read this list well, you will probably see it again and again.

The 'Knife' Issue

Nothing has caused more controversy than the 'historic decision' by TSA management and its Director, John Pistole, to allow small knives on planes, so the TSA gestapo can concentrate on too-large bottles of shampoo and deodorant. Everybody knows that shampoo kills, not knives, even small ones. It is possible, of course, that Pistole has been working secretly with some national organization of devoted knife-owners, and needed to make a statement about something as important as guarding the skies against killer deodorant.

What resulted was a serious knife fight (no pun intended). Everyone with logical thinking that has access to the media has called Pistole an idiot. The pilots, flight attendants, security personnel, passengers, travel associations, etc. have all made major statements supporting the continuation of the knife ban. Unfortunately, so also did several Republic Congressmen and Senators; that was all Pistole and the rest of the administration needed to go to the wall to defend his (Pistole's) otherwise idiotic decision.

Getting a bomb through Newark Airport

Perhaps the most egregious example of why the TSA is incompetant is Newark International Airport, where, on February 25th, an undercover inspector not only brought a bomb to the airport, but got it through multiple layers of inspections by TSA's finest, successfully, to include a body search and frisking. Virtually every major news media covered the story; some burying it in inner pages, or on the late news, and others putting it out in front where it belonged. Pistole and his administration at Newark shrugged their shoulders and basically said, 'so what else is new? It can't happen again.'

Sure, it might not happen again, if those on duty at the airport that day are disciplined (read that FIRED), to include the managers and supervisors that day on the shift. It won't happen, of course, although there will probably be some form of sarcrificial lamb given up to cover up the report. Most likely, the inspector who brought the bomb in as a insepction test will be the one to go.

I agree with what Chriustopher Elliot of HuffPost said above, "The TSA needs to trim its $8-billion-a-year budget by eliminating a vast layer of ineffective middle management and reducing the size of its force, which is often referred to as "Thousands Standing Around."

In yet another colossal blunder by the unusually incompetent TSA senior executives, the TSA has now decided to randomly check drinks bought within the secure zone at airports, according to an article from the Western Center for Journalism, and reported elsewhere as well.

On its blog, the TSA has defended its practice of randomly screening beverages purchased by passengers in secured areas of airports after passing through security checkpoints. You know, just in case that barista turned your latte into a bomb or something.

Under what TSA's "Blogger Bob Burns" calls "Not a big deal really..." passengers might be pulled out of line at the gate during boarding so that TSA can screen beverages they acquired after passing the security checkpoint, in supposedly secured areas of the airport.

According to Bob, the practice is just another one of TSA's layered security measures designed to be "unpredictable" thus making it harder for terrorists to plan for in trying "to do malice to the transportation infrastructure."

"If everything we did was always the same, it would provide a checklist for people to know exactly what to expect," wrote Bob. "While this would be extremely helpful for passengers, it would also be useful to those wishing to do us harm."

In the screening process, which Bob says will take just "few moments of your time before boarding your flight," a TSA agent holds a non-toxic, chemically treated test strip over the beverage opened by the passenger. As Bob stresses, the test strip never actually touches the beverage. "If the test results are positive TSA will conduct additional testing to make a final assessment," says Bob.

Bob also assures that at-the-gate screening is random and "isn't happening at every airport every day." [Info in part courtesy of About.com. ]

As we all know, TSA seldom takes anything to the level intended, and usually has its former unemployment office employees over-reacting. Expect that here as well, especially that your drink will be ruined as they 'teach' employees not to put the strip in the drink itself. Will the incompetence of the TSA never end?

This latest action is in the running for the next upcoming Stupid Award.

Attorney GeneralEric Holder, in a recent interview, called himself a 'proxy' in the political debate over Obama. if he wants to be known as that, it is certainly his right. The only REAL debate over Obama is whether enough people who have been on Mars for three years, a few Unionists who have never learned to pull any other key than 'Democrat', and those confined with mental illness will vote for him. That is a really great crowd for any AG to join.

Holder has been a pompous fool since he avoided prosecution over his support for the Bush torture memos that he somehow avoided. As an Attorney-General, he rates somewhere around Janet Reno, whose only claim to fame was sending in a swat team to send young Elian Gonzalez back to Cuba. His excuse for doing only those things he is forced to do is to constantly raise the race card, or have his surrogates do it for him, and then claim the high ground.

If you believe Holder, he knew nothing about Fast & Furious until he stopped it. Well, that is just not the way Justice works. US Attorney's don't go running around agreeing to allow gun running into Mexico without WASH(INGTON APPROVAL. BATF does not allow their agents to 'go rogue' around a US attorney without WASHINGTON APPROVAL. BATF would not bless it if DOJ was not in agreement. All threads seem to follow Holder, but Holder denies it.

Where is the truth? In the documents he refuses to provide to the Congress, with Obama's blessing.

The time has come to either produce the facts, or get out of Washington by resigning.

There is a lot of noise on both sides of the Obamacare debate, especially with the Supreme Court decision Thursday. The real questions, however, are:

Is this good for the American Public as a whole?

Is the win sustainable, both in the election upcoming, and over the longer term?

These are very serious questions, and they require very serious answers.

In the first case, the certainty of benefit for the public as a whole is not at all settled. The Christian Science Monitor, just this morning, in an article titled, Healthcare reform law: How Supreme Court ruling affects families, seems to differ from the administration on its effects.

They take a 'typical' family of four, and say, "Consider a working-age family of four, with an income of $60,000 and no earner covered by an employer-based health plan. According to a "health reform subsidy calculator" created by the Kaiser Family Foundation, which tracks US healthcare policies, this family would reap a tax subsidy of $9,308 if they buy insurance in 2014. That would cover most of a total premium cost of $14,245, perhaps putting health insurance within the family's financial reach."

"Without the "stick" of an individual mandate, this "carrot" might not prompt as many households to fully insure themselves. To take the family in the example just given, they would still face a sizable premium (nearly $5,000), plus the prospect of additional out-of-pocket expenses, capped for this family at $6,250."

"For comparison, the typical US household in 2010 had total spending of $48,109, with $3,157 of that for health care, according to a survey by the US Labor Department"

Those figures sound ominous, and they are only the start of the analysis (Which should really have been done much earlier) which will be flooding the airways over the next two or three months, and may significantly affect the election. The Obama Administration has no real idea of the total costs, other than their own projections, mostly provided by the Insurance Companies, and they have not tried in any meaningful way to develop their own factual estimates.

Then, there is the political reality. Some number of Democrats have already told Obama's campaign people they don't want him in their state, or supporting their re-election bids. over 20 Democrat members of the House voted for Holder's conviction on contempt of Congress; THAT IS UNUSUAL IN AN ELECTION YEARS, EVEN WITH THE NRA AND OTHER BREATHING DOWN THEIR NECK. This will be tight election for many in their states, both House and Sentate, and few see Obama as a help in their campaigns.

The town of Durham, New Hampshire has already told the Obama Campaign to say home, unless the campaign will pay the local security and support costs. This is another thing virtually unheard of in a presidential campaign, but it reflects perhaps a growing trend that could hurt Obama, whose campaign is short of cash to pay bills such as this.

Obamacare is unpopular with a majority of the people outside the Washington Beltway. Polls are consistently seeing majority percentages, no matter how slim, that say a good part of the public does not want implementation of the law. How that will be reflected in the November election is yet to be seen, but both Congressmen and Senators are quickly distancing themselves from it other than Pelosi and Reid, who are stuck with it in their baggage. That also does not bode well for the president.

Finally,. when all is said and done, the Supreme Court majority basically trashed the Obama arguments for upholding the law, relying instead on a brief remark by the Solicitor General in oral arguments that the mandate penalty could be considered a tax. The Obama administration has consistently said it is not a tax, as has the Congress, but their argument before the Court changed all that. Some would argue that the Chief Justice simply gave them what they asked for, and it is the president who has to get himself out of the mess the Solicitor General created.

Obama has been arguing that taxes would not go up--just like George HW Bush did in his re-election effort. How this will play with the public is unknown, but more taxes, and more [pressure on small businesses who would have to provide health care or pay the 'tax' is not going to help the fragile economic upturn sustain itself.

Bottom line: I think Obama got what he wanted, but will be in big trouble in November, as the 'real' information on his socialist medicine approach finally comes out and people realize how much it will hurt them and their family. Ipredict numbers will pay the penalty rather than pay the inflated costs of healthcare that are coming, and the Emergency Rooms will be flooded by those that now have a right to care.

Facebook is reporting that www.homelandsecurityus.com, a fellow site reporting on the mediocre efforts of DHS to actually run an efficient department, has been told by Go Daddy, an Internet provider to take its site elsewhere, all due, apparently, to complaints by Obama supporters. You can read the story here.

The real problem here is censorship. Go Daddy has published a statement, and you are free to read it here. The versions are miles apart, and it's Go Daddy that seems to be on the short end.

Any of you out there that have your blogs on Go Daddy, and they intrude on any part of Government or politics, ought to consider another provider, and quickly. The Obama Gestapo is on the move.

True peace in the Middle East seems as elusive today as it has been for many years, even with the changes in regime going on around Northern Africa and Sinai.

Egypt has a new president, but can he really rule? Will the generals give up enough power that the 'democracy' there becomes more than a sham? it is possible, it will take a great deal of finesse on the part of Mohammed Morsi to convince the generals to actually let him run the country. He has officially renounced his membership in the Muslim Brotherhood, but those resignations seldom are meaningful. He has also both questioned and said he will support the previous treaty with Israel, while call them vultures for their treatment of the Palestinians. Only time will tell, but this 'change' has all the earmarks of an emerging, new Islamic law-based state.

Syria is still in the midst of a semi-civil war, and it shows no signs of abating, and no signs of any real assistance by the Western nations, who are effectively being prevented by Russia and China from intervening. In the meanwhile, Iran is supporting the Syrian government of Assad with weapons and 'volunteers', as they massacre section after section of towns in the area. The latest effort, the downing of a Turkish jet fighter, is causing significant alarm across that border, and involving NATO.

Iran continues to resist nuclear facility inspection, calling for meeting after meeting, and dragging most of the European and US Community with it as it delays while it builds its first bomb. Again, China and Russia support their efforts, and wield veto power in the UN to prevent more significant sanctions than those already in place.

Jordan continues to remain under the horizon, while continuing to serve as the largest focal point of Palestinian people who want to return to their ancestral homes. If the border security provided by Egypt across the Sinai is dropped, look for many of the Palestinians in Jordan to try to return to their prior homes, a move that will be almost certainly be resisted by Israel.

Lebanon remains a powder keg as well. Hizbollah has been quiet lately, but is supported by Syria, and simply, in my view, waiting for its moment to move across the border to Israel.

Then there is Israel.They just can't seem to make peace with the Palestinians, or anyone else for that matter. The country whose constitution provides for immigration for mistreated and abused people, is in the midst of expelling Africans who fit that description, but are somehow 'unacceptable' to some Israelis, who consider them inferior, and who would dilute the majority of Jews in Israel. Israeli relations with Turkey, its former key ally in the region, is going from bad to even worse, and Israeli Knesset debates on Armenian massacres early in the 20th century don't help any more than a debate on the Israeli massacre of innocents in Gaza. All it does is inflame sentiment.

The US, in all this mess, still seems to feel that it can be an honest broker for peace, which is, of course, ridiculous. Multiple US administrations have supported Israel in any situation, right or wrong, and there seems to be no change in that sentiment, particularly in an election year., and also with PLO President Abbas, with whom he visited Bethlehem yesterday. Putin provided encouraging statments of support for the Palestinian Authority and its need for a State of Palestine, while also cautioning Israel against taking unilateral actions, such as increased settelements, that may deter negitiations for a permanent peace. The real questions is how this is perceived in the region, especially since the US is firmly allied with israel. Only time wil ltell what influence Russia has in future negotiations.

Russia is cthe newest entrant into diplomatic approaches in the region. Russian president Putin is currently visitng the area, has met with Prime Minister Netanyahu

What we continue to have in the Middle East is stalemate -- stalemate that can go nowhere until multiple parties decide to make significant change within their own countries, and then across the region.

The Supreme Court announced its decision today in the Arizona Illegal immigrant case, and found that the State of Arizona has the right to tell its police officers they can check the legal status of those they stop for other matters. Three other parts of the law making illegal aliens in Arizona a crime; working as an illegal; and other more minor issues were struck down as prerogatives of the Federal Government.

While the results were mostly expected, it was the rhetoric of the Justices on both sides that really set the tone of the decision. The Court said, in essence, the Federal Government was pre-eminent in immigration matters, and the Federals could decide to enforce or not enforce the law as they chose. That gave some support to the Obama administrationargument they could selectively prosecute, and decide to allow illegals to stay in the country as the most recent executive order specified.

Conversely, the Court also allowed the State of Arizona leeway in allowing the local police to document illegals when they had been stopped for other alleged offenses. The Justice Department was quick to announce they would be 'looking closely' at Arizona efforts to ensure that racial profiling was not taking place.

The Court remanded (sent back) the case to the District Court Judge with instructions to remove the injuction as it related to police information-gathering and notifications to ICE.

This will not be the last of what is heard about immigration reform, and allowing illegals to stay in the US -- at least through the election, since the Obama Administration is hoping that a significant number of these people will vote Democrat in the upcoming November elections.

Fifth anniversary of Hamas takeover of Gaza is approaching. The fifth anniversary of Hamas rule in Gaza is approaching with apparently mixed results. The Associated press released an article by Ibrahim Barzak and Karin Laub which discusses the plusses and minuses of Hamas' rule, and the feeling of the residents of the Gaza Strip.

"The Islamists of Palestine were once respected as a supposedly honest alternative to corrupt secular rivals, the Western-backed Fatah group led by the late Yasser Arafat. But that luster has mostly been lost as miserable Gaza becomes even poorer and more aid-dependent. The corruption of the Fatah days is perceived to have persisted into Hamas' rule, as Audis, Porsches and Hummers are driven around potholed streets by a newly wealthy class of black market traders who benefit from the regime," said Barzak & Laub.

On the streets of Gaza, bitterness seems prevalent.

"I am not saying Fatah was better, but when I voted for Hamas I voted for change," said Fahmi Khamis, 42, a vendor who sells made-in-China household goods in Gaza City's outdoor market. "This did not happen. Instead, we lost a lot."

Meanwhile, there are also reports that Israel plans to demolish the Palestinian village of Susiya, which it calls an illegal settlement, even though the people havelived there for decades in relative peace, although poor. Israel wants these people out of what they call "Area C", which has been extensively populated by Israeli settlers over the past few years, and would be part of israel in any eventual settlement, according to a report from CBS News.

There is international concern about the razing of this and other villages.

As CBS reports, "Critics say Israel has blocked virtually all Palestinian development in Area C, while expanding the Jewish settlements there. Only 5 percent of Palestinian requests for building permits in Area C have been granted in recent years, said Alon Cohen-Lifshitz of the Israeli group Bimkom, which calls for fair planning practices."

"Planning restrictions and demolition orders are part of a wider Israeli land grab, said Michael Sfard, an attorney for Israeli activists who have installed solar panels and wind turbines with German funding in 18 small communities in the southern West Bank."

"The federal government (Germany) and its EU partners are watching the situation ... very carefully," said a German Foreign Ministry spokesman Wednesday, on customary condition of anonymity. "They are calling for safeguarding the German and international projects ... and are in close contact with the Israeli authorities."

"Israel's Civil Administration, the branch of the military dealing with Palestinians in Area C, said it is working on more than a dozen master plans in the southern West Bank to regularize what it considers Palestinian squatters. Maj. Guy Inbar, an Israeli spokesman, said some of the work is being held up because Palestinians are not cooperating. He said some of the Palestinians in the southern West Bank would be asked to move as part of such plans, but he declined to give details."

Qamar Assad, an attorney for Susiya, said the villagers have not been offered an alternate site.

Former Israeli Soldier trying to become a Palestinian. Finally, Fox News is reporting an interesting story. it seems that a former member of the Israel Defense Force (IDF) is trying to renounce his Israeli citizenship to become a Palestinian citizen.

As Fox reports, "In an odd twist to the decades-old Israeli-Palestinian saga, a former Israeli soldier has embarked on a new fight: He wants to renounce his Israeli citizenship and move to a Palestinian refugee camp in the West Bank."

"Andre Pshenichnikov, a 23-year-old Jewish immigrant from Tajikistan, was recently detained by Israeli police for residing illegally in the Deheishe Refugee Camp near Bethlehem. There he told police that he wants to break all ties with Israel, give up his Israeli citizenship and obtain a Palestinian one instead. Pshenichnikov is currently traveling in Europe for two months. When he returns, he hopes to move to the West Bank."

In recognition of his extraordinary efforts to hide, obfuscate, deny, refuse to comply, refuse to admit complicity, refuse to bargain honestly, and for just plain being stupid, over the Fast and Furious Scandal, the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, is awarded the latest Stupid Award with the gratitude of the some parts of the Nation, and the hearty laughs of the rest of the world, who for some unknown reason think we are a democracy which actually practices what it preaches to others.

He has earned the gratitude and respect of all who disdain the process of accountability under the law. Congratulations Eric Holder!

Obama had promised gtransparency in his administion, saying, in 2007 twice in interviews with CNN. "You know, there's been a tendency on the part of this administration (G. W. Bush) to — to try to hide behind executive privilege every time there's something a little shaky that's taking place," then-Sen. Obama also said in an interview with Larry King. In the second interview, Obama said that "the issue of executive power and executive privilege is one that is subject to abuse, and in an Obama presidency what you will see will be a sufficient respect for law and co-equal branches of government."

Of course, now that he is President, the cards have changed. After the Republican national Committee came out with a press release this afternoon, reminding him of his pledge, the Presdient's spokesman Dan Pfeiffer, replied, "The problem of gun-walking was a field-driven tactic that dated back to the previous administration, and it was this administration's attorney general who ended it," Pfeiffer said.

"In fact, the Justice Department has spent the past 14 months accommodating Congressional investigators, producing 7,600 pages of documents and testifying at 11 Congressional hearings. Yet, Republicans insist on moving forward with an effort that Republicans and objective legal experts have noted is purely political." What Pfeiffer left out was any discussion of the over 80,000 documents being reviewed by the Justice Inspector General, who has been assigned the task of investigating the events. The committee calls it needed oversight, and the Democrats call it politically motivated.

This whole mess did not have to happen. The American people have a right to know how all the guns went missing in "Fast & Furious" and why it is so necessary to deny the facts, and cover up the circumstances of the death of the Border patrol agent that died in a hale of Mexican gunfire from US weapons proved them by the DHS Agencies running the so-called sting.

Issa's committee issued several subpoenas for the documents related to the whole mess, and were first lied to about the sting, and then stonewalled by Holder and his minions, who decided to open several investigations that will take years to complete, and will probably never find out what really happened. Now, the mess involves the President as he has invoked Executive privilege to prevent the turnover of the documents.

As the Baltimore Sun said this morning about the possibility of another Watergate "Barack Obama could turn out to be one of the most hypocritical politicians in recent memory. He appears short-tempered, irritated and snappy in front of the press. If his policies and demeanor continue along this path, he could begin to draw comparisons to the president whose administration was taken down by the Watergate scandal.

This ongoing fiasco has to stop. Holder needs to go, and Obama needs to order the Justice Department to produce the documents needed for the Congressional Investigation.

When asked on "CBS This Morning" if airport security procedures are reactive rather than proactive, former TSA Administrator Kip Hawley replied, "I think they are proactive. The problem is not that they're not proactive; the problem is they don't get rid of the old ones when they're no longer needed."

Hawley credited the current administrator John Pistole as being well-connected with the intelligence community, and being "hyper" about making sure necessary security measures are taken. "But the problem is they have all this leftover security protocols that are clogging up the system and angering the public," Hawley told Erica Hill.

Hawley's comments come a day after Pistole faced a barrage of criticism on Capitol Hill, at a House Subcommittee hearing on aviation security. Read the rest of the interview here. TSA Still has a long way to go to become the efficient agency it needs to be, instead of simply throwing more people at problems no longer considered prioritiies.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 allows states to purge their voter registrations, to eliminate the dead, the illegal, and those that moved, from their lists. The deadline for that would be in August under the law. However, the Holder Justice Department doesn't adhere to the law in its actions. They have decided that purging in a critical state like Florida, which decided at least on Bush win, must stop now.

Florida has been trying for months to get the list of illegals from the Department of Homeland Security, but without success. The Obama administration apparently wants to make sure that the bloated rolls will help them in November, and is fighting hard through what should be a neutral Justice Department to do just that.

It's a bit like the meeting Holder had only a week ago with selected Protestant pastors to give them the "Obama Line" for their public speaking in favor of the administration.

Hopefully, after the election, and when the Congress changes hands, there will be hearings into the malfeasance of Holder, and he will be held accountable. We can only hope.

In the meanwhile, the House should prevent obligations to the Justice Department to support this type of open political chicanery. This yet another reason why the recent introduction of a motion for impeachment should pass the house and go to the Senate

Once again, the Obama Administration is in deep diplomatic trouble for the way it handled the case of the dissident Chen Guangcheng, who fled to the US Embassy in Beijing, and then got promises he and his family would be treated humanely, only to end up in a local hospital closely guarded. The major news services are all reporting the 'deal' that was made to make it easier for Hillary Clinton to speak to the senior Chinese leadership without a thorn in her side at the same time.

The US Embassy spokesmen are reporting that Guangcheng left freely for the hospital, CBS reported.

As soon as Guangcheng had left the embassy, and was transported to the local hospital, he was immediately subjected to close guard, and, while his wife was allowed to see him, apparently he was told that he had to leave the embassy or his wife and child would be sent back to their province and possibly beaten or killed. Shortly after he left the embassy, a Chinese spokesman demanded that the US apologize for interference in China's internal affairs.

President Obama's budget projects that the deficit for the current year will total $1.33 trillion, the fourth straight year of deficits over $1 trillion. Under President Obama, the nation's total public debt has reached a record $15.6 trillion.

This is an interesting video which anyone who wants the real scoop on Obama and his 'accomplishments' should see and hear. See and hear it on YouTube.

An interesting article in USA Today, titled, "1 year after bin Laden's death: Al-Qaeda 'far from defeated" speaks to the actual value of the death of bin Laden. Jim Michaels, the author, points out, "The death of Osama bin Laden at the hands of U.S. Navy commandos a year ago was a setback to al-Qaeda, but the Islamic terror organization remains a potent threat around the world, intelligence experts say."

However, the article also points out that a major desire to kill him emanated from his being on the Most Wanted List so long, and not necessarily because he was in 'command' on al-Qaeda. As the article continues, "In the past year, al-Qaeda affiliates have infiltrated whole provinces of eastern Afghanistan and pose a threat to the country's future, according to the Pentagon.'

'Al-Qaeda jihadists are insinuating themselves into many conflicts in parts of Africa, the U.S. Africa Command says.It is blamed for increasing bombings in Iraq and has gained strength in southern Yemen, where it has been holding off government troops and being targeted by U.S. drone strikes."

"l-Qaeda-linked terror plots continued in the years that bin Laden was in hiding and not believed to be in direct contact with plotters. Many were disrupted by foreign and domestic intelligence agencies. Police in New York have broken up several attempted al-Qaeda plots, including terrorists who tried to bomb Times Square and synagogues."He built affiliates," said Rick Nelson, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies."

So, what is the real deal on the importance of the bin Laden killing? Is it more political? Is it the completion of a vengeance need? Or, is it nothing more than an opportunity for the Obama Administration to really DO something that would get headlines?

The Associated Press is reporting this morning that the TSA has approved the utilization of uncleared employees, allowing them ID Cards that givem access to airport facilities, without the necessary completion of background checks.

This is apparently happening at Atlanta-Hartsfield International Airport, Atlanta, according to the piece in the Washington Post Today. The travelling public should be concerned that virtually anyone willing to give the TSA their fingerprints to get a job could be working the planes and the runways at Atlanta. Hartsfield. Read the whole story here.

But it wasn't to stop the contraband, according to prosecutors. It was to make sure it got through.

The screener, John Whitfield, allegedly told the man to get to the back of the line so he and his luggage would get to the X-ray machines when Whitfield's shift started. That way, he would be the one watching the meth show up on screen; and in exchange for $1,200, Whitfield allowed it through, according to a federal indictment unsealed Wednesday.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is apparently up to its old tricks again, doing what it chooses without regard to either logic or common sense. her are some examples:

4-Year Old frisked twice while she and mother are hysterical.

Here's the mother's story -- In an interview with The Wichita (KS) Eagle on Tuesday, Brademeyer said she is telling her story, which has drawn attention from overseas media after she wrote about it on her Facebook page, “because other kids shouldn’t be treated like this.”

The 27-year-old said it happened like this: She, her 4-year-old daughter, Isabella, and her 6-year-old son, Oliver, were in the Wichita airport, headed back to Montana after her brother’s wedding at Exploration Place. The children’s maternal grandmother was taking the same flight on her way back to California. The children went through security screening with no problem, but their grandmother set off the alarm. Officers asked the grandmother to sit to the side and wait for a pat-down. That’s when Isabella saw her grandmother and “excitedly ran over to give her a hug, as children often do,” Brademeyer said. Their contact lasted a few seconds, she said. But the transportation security officers “responded to this very simple action in the worst way imaginable,” she said.

There is, of course, another side to the story. Here is the TSA Response: The TSA says its officers followed proper procedures, and the agency denies part of Brademeyer’s version of what happened around noon April 15 at Wichita Mid-Continent Airport.

The TSA wouldn’t respond to questions posed by the Eagle Tuesday, but did provide a statement, saying, “In this case … the child had completed screening but had contact with another member of her family who had not completed the screening process. While it was explained to family members why additional security procedures were necessary in this instance, TSA officers did not suspect or suggest the child was carrying a firearm,” the statement said. “TSA has reviewed the incident and determined that our officers followed proper current screening procedures in conducting a modified pat-down on the child.” End of statement.

My comment: What the TSA did, as usual with them, was to announce at the same time 'modified' procedures for working with children of this age to prevent future incidents. There is where the question lies--if the TSA was simply following procedures, why change them? If the change is one of their routine cosmetic changes that won't last, but will get the press of their back, that is one thing. However, what is more probable is that they recognized that they screwed up, but still want to seem to be in charge. Things like this, whatever the reason, should not be happening.

Then, there is the case of Congressman Canseco (R-TX) who says he was groped by a TSA inspector

Last week, a TSA agent at San Antonio International Airport patted down Francisco Canseco, who sits on the House Financial Services Committee. The agent, an aide said, was so aggressive that he hurt Canseco — so the congressman moved the agent’s hand away.

[ Reported by Politico] A freshman Republican from Texas says the TSA got a little too friendly during a recent pat-down in San Antonio — leading to an exchange where the congressman and the TSA agent both said they were assaulted. Both Canseco and the TSA agent claimed they were assaulted, and the San Antonio Police Department got involved. According to a Canseco aide, no citations were issued.

His side of the Story: "The agent was very aggressive in his pat-down, and he was patting me down where no one is supposed to go,” Canseco told KENS 5 in San Antonio. “It got very uncomfortable, so I moved his hand away. That stopped everything and brought in supervisors and everyone else." Earlier this week, Canseco was patted down again, the aide said. He asked the agent why he was being detained again so soon, feeling it wasn’t coincidental. But eventually he was allowed to board.

TSA's Response: The agency’s response, provided to KENS 5 (TV - San Antonio), was that the “TSA incorporates random and unpredictable security measures throughout the airport. Once a passenger enters the screening process, they must complete it prior to continuing to a flight or secure area."

The Rest of the Story: Earlier this year, he and Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) sponsored a bill known as the STRIP Act, which seeks to prohibit TSA agents from using any trappings of law enforcement. For instance, it would prohibit TSA agents from being called “officer” and would forbid them from wearing uniforms or badges that resemble those worn by police officers.

Surprise, Surprise -- is this yet naother case of retribution by TSA for people doing things they don't like? I wonder.

Huffington Post Reports: Ross Berenson had returned home from Los Angeles when he noticed his luggage had been tampered with. After a calm conversation with TSA workers, he was offered a complaint form to fill out. But, once on the subway, Berenson noticed that it had already been partially filled out, with a message saying "Go to hellllllllllllllllll."

This is not the first time that TSA workers have left notes in luggage, or simply refused to get serious about complaints. When will they learn that this kind of stuff seldome stays private of quiet.

With the ongoing political campaign in full swing, more and more laughable comments are coming out each day to rivone another with the daily 'stupidest comment.' I thought perhaps a couple, or a few, might make for a good morning today.

Who better to start with than Nancy Pelosi: Here's the background -- Pelosi and Democratic leaders have proposed a three tiered plan to pass what is known as the DISCLOSE Act, that would require corporations and other entities known as "covered organizations" to disclose the amount of money they spend on campaigns within24 hours. "Covered organizations" would include any corporation, labor union, 501(c) organization, Super PAC and 527 organizations. Most television and radio networks, newspapers, publishing houses, think tanks and movie studios are usually organized under a corporate umbrella.

Here's the statment -- "We have a clear agenda in this regard: Disclose, reform the system reducing the role of money in campaigns, and amend the Constitution to rid it of this ability for special interests to use secret, unlimited, huge amounts of money flowing to campaigns," Pelosi stated this at one of her recent press conferences. Has she thought what her own party would so if this wwere applied to the Super-PACs, many of which belong to the Democrats, or their Hollywood surrogates? Probably not.

Then, there is our owned lovable Joe Biden, the Vice President: Here's the background -- The Washington Examiner's Byron York wrote in late March about a Chicago Democratic fundraiser, with former Democratic Chicago Mayor Richard Daley in attendance..

Here's the Statement -- "I never had an interest in being a mayor 'cause that's a real job. You have to produce. That's why I was able to be a senator for 36 years."

There are others, such as, Rick Perry: “And I will tell you, it’s three agencies of governments when I get there that are gone: Commerce, Education, and the uh, uh…what’s the third one there…”

How about Mitt Romney: "I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that's the America millions of Americans believe in. That's the America I love."

Ultimtely, it is President Obama that leads the pack. How about:

"Ultimately, I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," [Passed by a small majority in the house, and even closer in the Senate--all on party lines]

or, How about the classic conversation with the Russian President on space and missile defense --

The exchange:

President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.

President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…

President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.

President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir. Unfortunate that this about serious matters rather than some of the drivel above. And hoiw about..

Politics has always been siad to make 'strange bedfellows', but it also seems to make comedians and gaffers who do not realize the effect of their ad-lib comments.

There is much more where these came from, and probably a lot more as the campaign progresses

The news just keeps getting better each day for Barack Hussein, as he starts in earnest on his never-ending re-election campaign.

First Stop: Cartagena with the Secret Service. CNN is reporting that 12 Secret Service agents assigned to the Presidential detrail have been sent home and placed on administrative duty for drunken parties and prostitution charges.

Dan Lothian, the CNN WHite house Correspondant says, " Secret Service agents sent to Colombia ahead of President Barack Obama were relieved of duty and returned home amid allegations of misconduct. The incident -- reportedly related to involvement with prostitutes in Cartagena -- overshadowed the start of the sixth Summit of the Americas, where the president was to focus on trade, energy and regional security."

Edwin Donovan, a Secret Service spokesman, said in an interview, "Before the president's arrival, an undisclosed number of Secret Service agents were relieved of duty and replaced, . There have been allegations of misconduct made against the Secret Service in Cartagena, Colombia, prior to the president's trip. Because of this, those personnel are being relieved of their assignments, returned to their place of duty, and are being replaced by other Secret Service personnel. The Secret Service takes all allegations of misconduct seriously."

Praise the Secret Service and full-speed ahead with yet another black eye to Barack Hussein. He will probably announce the firing of the Secret Service Director, and claim that it was Bush's fault. We'll see.

Second Stop: North Korea. John Bolton, the former UN Ambassador under President Bush, has spoken out on the 'broken' policies that seem to guide the Obama administration with regard to North Korea. Bolton, speaking to the NRA on Friday said that "The United States has to have a better plan than counting on the other side’s missiles “blowing up in flight.” Bolton insisted that North Korea’s action demonstrates it believes it can continue to make progress toward a “deliverable” nuclear weapon, and that the major powers will complain, disregard, and the US will eventually come back to the negotiating table anyway.

According to the interview that followed his speech with Newsmax, Bolton suggested that the isolated north, using a long-range rocket launch to celebrate the 100th birthday of dead founding president, Kim Il-sung, and to mark the rise to power of his grandson, Kim Jong Un, is now widely expected to press ahead with a third nuclear test to show its military might. The North Korean rocket crashed into the sea after traveling a much shorter distance than a previous launch.

The real question is how much Barack Hussein has to screw up before his die-hard supporters realize they have a loser.

What about the Israeli activists crowding our airlines here? Do we deport them? No, We are a democracy, not an iron-curtain government.

CNN is reporting on YNET stories from Israel that the Israeli Government is determined to deport any activitists intending to support "Welcome to Palestine 2012" this coming weekend. They report " Israeli security forces are preparing to deport hundreds of pro-Palestinian activists expected to arrive at the country's main international airport beginning Sunday to protest Israel's policies in the occupied West Bank. Israeli Police will be implementing measures inside and around Ben Gurion airport from the weekend in order to deal with the arrival of activists into the country," Israeli police spokesman Mickey Rosenfeld told CNN .

"We believe, like prisoners in prisons, we are entitled to receive visitors and Palestinians under Israeli occupation are also entitled to receive visitors," said event coordinator Mazin Qumsiyeh. "So we are entitled to get international visitors to come and visit and show solidarity with us to learn about the situation, but Israel chooses to prevent these people from coming,"

Israel's public security minister, Yitzhak Aharonovitch, has called the activists "provocateurs" and Israeli news portal Ynet was told they would "be dealt with in a determined and quick way," by Aharonovich, "If they arrive in Israel they will be identified, removed from the plane, their entry into Israel will be prevented and they will be moved to a detention facility until they are flown out of Israel." Now that's the way a democracy acts!

What the US and other countries need to do is ban the myriad of Israeli politicians, speakers, and other 'activitists' that are pro-Israel from accessing our shores, our people, our media, and prevent them from stirring up anti-Palestinian sentiment. Myabe then Israel will begin to realize that it needs to live by international rules if it expects to be taken seriously. Of course, that won't happen because the Western nations don't have the guts to do it--they would rather listen to Netanyahu and his minions praise the genocide going on in Gaza and the West Bank.

Obama aide Hilary Rosen who Wikipedia says "is an American lobbyist, Democratic pundit and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LBGT) activist. She worked for the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) for 16 years where she was CEO from 1998 to 2003. She is the Managing Director of Public Affairs and Communications Practice at SKDKnickerbocker," decided to throw some jabs recently at Anne Romney, the wife of the presumed Republican Party candidate.

As Wikipedia reports, "On April 11, 2012, speaking on CNN regarding the difficulties women face in a slow economy, Rosen drew criticism after she stated that Ann Romney, a stay-at-home mom, has "never worked a day in her life." Rosen apologized for the statement the following day." As usual for Obama aides and apologists, an apology for a scurrilous insult by someone who have never herself really worked a day in her life--that is, as a real worker istead of a politico or executive--is just another example why the Obama Administration mentality has to be sent back to Illinois in the coming election.

The duty of a monther--especially one that decides to be in the home for the children as they grow--is just as important, or even more so in the early years when children take more to their mother than to their father, is not something that should be slandered by someone who has no concept of its importance in our 'real' society--not the paste-up society of politics and the record industry. Obama and his senior aides quickly distanced themselves from here comments, but the damage was once again done.

Aside from the apology, the comment was in poor taste at best, and ignorant of what used to be core principles of the American Society--the family comes first. She needs some lessons in common manners

Administration official slammed by the White house for revealing true figures

In another stunning example of how spin at the White house is paramount, take the case of Chuck Blahous who holds the title of Medicare Trustee for the Obama Administration. As a professor at George Mason, his Insitute there recently completed a study of the true impact of Medicare under the coming Obamacare rules. His study disagreed with the Congressional Budget office (CBO) and claimed they were double-counting figures to reduce the impact on the deficit.

Enter the White House spinmeisters. They accused Blahous of twisting the facts himself, and, instead of calling his by the title of the office to which he was appointed by Barack Hussein, they instead preferred to call him a 'Former Assistant to President Bush", which he was from 2001 until 2007. The facts Blahous presented were completely lost in the context of their assault--something the White House wants to happen so the 'real' story of Obamacare is not told before the election.

Any of you that have been following the incredible story of a President of the United States questioning the right of the US Supreme Court to decide on the constitutionality of laws, only to then try to say he meant something else but really did believe they shouldn't do it, must be falling over laughing. Even the child he has for a press secretary could not get the story right.

Clearly, former consitutional law professor Obama DID say that 'unelected' bodies should not be ruling on laws passed by the Congress. He must have momentarily forgotten that the Court does exactly that, and has over 150 times in recent years on a wide range of issues. Of course, he said that he MEANT to say that court should follow its own precedents and leave the Obamacare Act alone. Then his Press Secretary went even further--trying to undo what obama actually said in favor of a new spin--one that new included the appellate courts as well. That really cleared everything up.

Now, it is true that the Court most often follows prior precedent in making decisions. That is perfectly logical and expected--after all, the Court would make a real mess of the law if it changed its mind every few years. However, there are times and circumstances where new precedent needs to be created. The Dred Scott case legalized separate but equal education. However, by the 1950's it was clear that education was NOT equal, and the court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education that its prior rulings no longer held and a new standard (read that 'precedent') was now in play.

To say that the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution has been so completely litigated that there is no need to re-look precedent is, on its face, absurd. There are new industries, new issues, and changing industries and technologies that did not exist years ago. Each needs to be considered on its own merits, precedents considered, and decisions made that reflect the true needs of the industry involved.

Almost no one disputes that the insurance industry is very large and complex. Just because it is, and is pervasive across society does not make an iron-clad case for requiring people to do something they have not done before, for many reasons, but must do now to ensure that the Insurance companies are able to keep paying dividends. That 'mandate' is the key consideration for the Court. It has to rule on whether the Obamacare Act, created in secret by the insurance industry, the White House and the Democratic-controlled Congress meets the constitutional bar that the mandate can be enforced. Even the then-Speaker Pelosi admitted not to have even read the bill before it was passed.

Hopefully, two things will happen here. One, the Court will come to a reasonable decision and quickly on the constitutionality of the Act. Two, the White House, its leader, and his minions will let the Court do its work and not have to listen to the dribble coming out of the mouths of people who should know better.

I put some comments on the Beast Blog today. Like the WashingtonPost, they had 'technical problems' so i am putting the same here.

Read.

Like so many others, you split hairs to defend an undefensible position. Yes, the Israelis and the Palestinians are both Semites--historically and factually. They disagree on large numbers of issues, among them basic freedoms and rights they have to land that they have held for centuries--long before the migration of the first Jews to Palestine early in the 20th century. It is true that the UN gave what had been Palestine to the Jews--with the provision that a Palestinian State--never created--would also be formed. Instead, large numbers were expelled into Jordan and Egypt and remain expatriots not able to take back the land they legitimately own. Netanyahu insists that Israel is for Israelis. What about the Palestinian israelis that tilled the land long before. Have they no rights? Should not the UN be able to send in their human rights inspectors to assure that what Israel claims is true.

The Associated Press reported today that the deputy head of Iran’s armed forces said that Tehran is ready to take pre-emptive action against its foes if it feels that it is in danger.

“We do not wait for enemies to take action against us,” Gen. Mohammed Hejazi, who heads the military’s logistical wing, was quoted by the semiofficial Fars news agency as saying. “We will use all our means to protect our national interests.”

Iran said the day before that it was starting air defense war games to practice protecting nuclear and other sensitive sites, the latest in a series of military maneuvers viewed as a message to the West that Iran is prepared both to defend itself against an armed strike and to retaliate.

The official news agency IRNA said the four-day air defense war games, dubbed “Sarallah,” or “God’s Revenge,” were taking place in the south of the country and involve anti-aircraft batteries, radar, and warplanes. The drill will be held over 73,000 square miles (190,000 square kilometers) near the port of Bushehr, the site of Iran’s lone nuclear power plant.

Iran has held multiple air, land, and sea maneuvers in recent months as the tensions increase, according to the AP article.

If iran has only 'peaceful' nuclear intentions, why the saber-rattling, why the naval forces to Syria, and why the Britain-France Embargo? Only time will really tell what is happening here.

One of the latest analyses of the iran-Israel controversy was printed in the New York Times today in its world news report. Several significant statements are here about the intent of the nuclear program, its potential effect on israel, and the overall effect of US and other sanctions. read the article here.

Multiple media outlets have been reporting on iran's apparent willingness to talk about it nuclear program over the last 24 hours. it seems, in their view, that the sanctions are working.

Don't be fooled by the by the wanderings of Ahmadinijad and his crazy set of ayatollahs. They have offered before to so the same thing and then find a way to slap the face of the US and . Their latest set of bombings (One incident that occurred by someone with an Iranian passport) show that they are still the exporters of terrorism. if they are afraid, it is not of the US, but of Israel, which is clearly preparing for a major strike over the next couple of months.

Israel has iran dangling, and deservedly so. It is simply amazing to me that Iran has no fear of the major superpowers, but is clearly afraid that Israel, with nothing to lose, and a superpower providing the weapons, will conduct a devastating set of strikes on Iran. They (Israel) have the will, the guts, and the emerging requirement to do what their allies should have done a long time ago but lack the gumtion to complete

It has been a while since I have seen anything base enough to earn one of my stupid awards. This time, it is the Department of Health & Human Services, and its Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who I had previously thought a reasonable politician. However, the recent annoouncement, greeted warmly by religious leaders, that contraceptive and other types of care, including abortion counselling, etc, would be mandated for religious organizations that provided health care tipped the hat to this award.

While I am fervently a pro-life person, this is not my principal reason for the award. Secretary Sebelius is simply doing her boss Obama's bidding to implement as much of Obamacare as is possible before the Supreme Court rules. Please remember that this is the law written by the insurance companies for the insurance companies and includes such 'benefits ' for the American public as forced insurance, fines for not having commercial insurance, higher costs for drugs, reduced medicare and medicaid benefits, and a wealth of other things that only Obama and the insurance companies have decided to include in their best interests. Even the then Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi indicated that no one had read the bill before it was passed.

Now we have Sebelius stirring up virtually every religious group, who are resisting on freedom of religion grounds, and will eventually vote in drovesd to oust Obama. That is not smart politics. As a former governor she should know better, but then a good number of Obama appointees follow his socialistic pronoucements in lock step. She is an immense disappointment-- A LOSER like her collegues.

To say that the Mideast is a tinderbox is perhaps a misnomer. Rather, it appears the fuses are already lit and, as usual, the US will be in the middle, primarily due to the ineptitude and stupidity of the Obama Administration.

The most important problem is, in my view, not Israel-Iran, as many think, but a more basis conflict--the production and delivery of oil. We still have major conflicts ongoing in Bahrain, Syria, Egypt, and Libya--all contributing to the ever-fluctuating prices of oil at the barrel-head. Until these regional flareups settle down, especially those in Egypt and Libya, there cannot be any stabilization of oil prices.

Much of this instability is tied to the greed, not of the producers, but from the refiners and distributors. if one looks honestly at the oil market, it does not take a genius to realize that prices above those set by OPEC and others are set by the same distributors that bought the early through futures purchases months or even years earlier. let's say for a moment that their price at the pipe was $60.00 a barrel for delivery in twelve months. The market immediately takes over and the price rises because of 'market turmoil' to the extent that--a year later--that $60 oil is now $90 oil just as it is now out of the pipe today--a great profit for the distributors. Take instability in Egypt, Libya, or even Greece and the price goes even higher long before the delivery and payment for the oil futures is required.

Add to that instability a number of conflicts, such as that in Bahrain, which affects the Saudi oil market, and even more instability occurs in both pricing and availability.

There are also a number of sources that point to the US - a major oil importer -- as one of the real problems in this set of equations. US refiners have large supplies of oil, much of it heavier oil, although lighter oil for gasoline is also stored, and they are carefully limiting their refining and distribution processes to drive up the prices even further. That doesn't help anyone, except the refiners that generally support the Obama administration with contributions.

Bottom line --oil is a major factor in the larger equation of Mideast peace.

Israel as a variable

The majority of the Mideast countries, despite their public statements, do not like Israel in their midst. Nor do they like the attitude of the current Israeli administation that continues to try to beat down both Hamas and the Fatah. In turn, Israel, relying on the US and its UN Security Council majority, could care less about true peace, relying on enforced cease fires with occasional invasions by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) Whenever they choose.

The argument, however, is not about Israel asa country. it is about Israel as a religious entity--one that is anathema to Islam regardless of the individual sect. It must be remembered that, while the Jews have a long history in Palestine, they were absent for many centuries, and other semitic peoples lived on the land that Israel now claims through UN Mandate. Even that mandate was never completely executed and the only people left out were the original Palestinians, who were thrown from their land, given no rights, and displaced even further as European Jews filled the land spaces.

That having been siad, Israel is a recognized country and its citizens have a right to live in peace as well. Unfortunately, neither side really gives way to the other; Israel is the strongest country in the area; its Government is strong and its military powerful; and its people dedicated to peace but prepared for war if needed to retain their space.

Faced on all sides by countries and governments that really do not support them, Israel has a continuing problem of preparation for conflict. Egypt started to close the underground portals to Gaza, but, with the "Arab Spring" has generally stopped that effort, and even opened the above-ground entry points between Egypt and Gaza to convoy trade. Lebanon continues to harass the Israeli border guards and troops, and missiles still fire occasionally from Gaza and the West Bank. Syria is decidedly not a friend of israel but, luckily, is engaged in its own burgeoning civil war.

Importantly, the Israeli people are tired of war and are gradually splitting into both peace-preferred and war-mongering factions. The war faction sees Iran as its greatest threat and it looking for ways to justify its attack on Iranian nuclear facilities. That might be a good idea, but Israel will have only one shot at that country, and the real question is whether they have the capability to pull off a complete destruction of those facilitate, the Iranian air defense system, and enough of the Revolutionary Guard and the Iranian Air Force to make their raid a success. The US is already deeply involved in supporting that effort when it comes. We will provide even larger 'bunker buster' bombs, refueling facilities, and everything else they need. We (the US) will also be prepared to condemn their actions should the world not agree--that's the general response from the Obama Administration thus far).

The Israeli peace faction is turning quickly to Palestinian rights and, again, justifiably so. Were the israeli Government to stop the indiscriminate settlement building, and provide rights to the Palestinians that peacefully worked the land for centuries, they might just find an ally for even more peace initiatives. The full terms of peace among the Jews and Muslims will probably never be achieved after the two Intifadas, but it is worth the effort.

That attempt at pace means the US needs to become an honest broker and not just an Israeli ally. The US needs to get out of the daily complaints, and into a view that encourages both EQUALLY toward peace. Perhaps that means stopping much of the $50B in aid that goes out to Israel, or at least predicating the military support aid on real progress toward peace. Support to Israel on Iran is a different issue. Working out peace talks between the Palestinians and Israel through direct negotiations changes the equation, and removes the influence of iran on the issue.

Whatever we decide to do, and whatever Israel decides to do, it needs to happen before the Israelis attempt to destroy Iran. Peace will not come from an incomplete effort.

Iran seems determined to walk a fine line between simple stupidity and outright idiocy in its current face-off with the US Navy in the Straits of Hormuz. The last time they decided to close the straits by mining it, which resulted in an explosion aboard a US warship, they lost several craft in the return strikes. This time, with their new surface-to-surface missiles, also recently tested, they a giant again, but one with much more advanced firepower.

Iran is backed by China and Russia in their latest silliness, and has already indicated that, in the event of further UN/US sanctions (That is what this is really all about) they will close the straits and prevent oil export. The Straits provide an avenue for export of a significant portion of exports from Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and other producers. So, the Iranis believe they have a wild card and have chosen to insult and belittle the US into some kind of confrontation since they have their allies solidly behind them.

But do they?

Russia, in particular, has proved over time to be a blusterous but unfaithful ally to the countries it has tried to stir up against the US and its allies. China wants Irani oil, but will only go so far in supporting Iran. Both countries can veto UN Security Council actions, but do not have the power ro force the Security Council to stop independent actions by member states who choose to go around the UN. An effective stalemate for both countries.

Then there is the ultimate wild card in the area, Israel. it is clear from the dialogues over the past several months that Israel sees Iran as the biggest thorn in their side. The Israeli military would like nothing more than the green light to go in and take out the nuclear sites, and anything else of military value that supports Irani terrorism. So far, they have kept their looming potential below the horizon. That cannot last forever, and they will probably not ask for UN permission if they do decide to strike.

The US, in turn, is improving the arms capabilities of Saudi Arabia and Iraq so that they can defend themselves when needed, and especially if the Irani do decide to construct traffic in the Straits.

Since the Irani Military made it clear that they did not want the USS Stennis back in the straits the navy has announced that not only will the Stennis continue to patrol, but the Abraham Lincoln and another carrier group will join the patrols as well. That represents over 1500 aircraft, ships, and supporting vessels and infrastructure that strike Iran within minutes of any attack. If that eventuality occurs, a lot of people will be visiting with Allah. Let's all hope it doesn't come to that.

Time Magazine - Person of the Year 2011. As we barrel headlong into the rushing rapids that will inevitably be 2012, perhaps a few moments ought to be spent pondering where we are, what our nation is doing, and what directions we ought to pursue in the coming 2012.

First, it is interesting that Time magazine has announced its "Person of the Year" and named the protesters on Wall Street (and elsewhere in the Nation) as that honoree. Nothing could more succinctly express the general malaise of our society than that dedication. If these protesters were genuine, and not a bunch of professionals that go from cause to cause where their stipends come from, or where they might get free food and lodging aside from the streets, then they just might make a good point on the decadence of Wall Street and the broader banking community. However, just reading the signs, and listening to many of their 'spokesmen' on the airways, it is easy to tell that these people, in general, really don't know what they are protesting about, and, as usual, the range of topics goes far beyond the financial mess we are in right now.

Is Iran a sole threat or a conspiracy with others? An interesting question brought up over drinks the other day at my favorite pub in Crystal City. Some believe that Iran is a directed threat against primarily Israel, and that the US is simply exacerbating that threat by its support for Jewish State. Others believe that Iran is either working in concert with or bankrolling other states, such as Syria, in their efforts to undermine US efforts at peace in the area.

Personally, I believe neither is the straight truth. Iran is almost certainly bankrolling Syria, Hezbollah Lebanon, Hamas in the Gaza, and probably a large wing of factions in Iraq that have popped up since the US withdrawal a short time ago. Both Iran and Syria have, I believe correctly, gauged the international sentiment for reducing conflict over creating more brawling with either country. Only Israel remains alone in realizing that these two countries are significant risks to its survival over time if not stopped in their tracks. The US is now virtually powerless to stop that eventuality. All the rhetoric at the UN and other venues; all the frozen assets, travel restrictions, and the Hillary Clinton speeches have done virtually nothing to stop their internal and external actions. As long as either or both have the capability to produce nuclear weapons, they remain both a threat, and a danger that must be respected--even more than the danger currently posed by the succession in North Korea.

Iran has the oil, the partners, the customers, and supporters to prevent real action against it in the long run--all except Israel. If Israel sees a significant or potential danger (beyond that already in place), it will strike first and ask for international permission later--and justifiably so. Iran has at least a limited ability to respond with nuclear weapons, rocket-based, but will it really do so? Can it afford to do so? Probably not, leaving some measure of hegemony between Israel and Iran that will serve as a deterrent. Either side can severely damage the other, and each side hassuppporters who would really prefer not to be deeply involved in that potential conflict. Only time will tell, but I will bet that Iran and Syria will ratchet up the stakes, and either or both will find themselves on the other side of a massive attack in the next six months.

The future of Iraq. With the US pullout, Iraq has quickly become a mess that will require future international attention. The Government wants to arrest its own Kurdish Vice President, bringing the Sunni-Kurd wound out afresh--but without the US to mediate. Terror squads are roaming the country at will bombing here and there as they choose--disrupting the Government, and showing the clearly that Iraq must either live with their decisions or face civil war. Expect a full-blown civil war within 3 months here.

Implications for the US economy. Much of what is discussed above is being steered by politics and the economy. The Obama Administration is so clearly showing itself as the single most incompetent admistration since Warren G Harding - Even Jimmy Carter did a better job, and both got the Nobel Prize for their lack of effort. Everything in the Obama White House from his first day in office has been directed toward re-election, and nothing, including war and diplomacy will stand in the way of that effort. The economy is still in a shambles, unemployment remains too high, the banks continue to use Federal funds, supported by the Federal Reserve and Treasury, as they gouge customers, and Obama goes off to Hawaii as he has done something to merit a vacation. He has inflamed Israel--not even realizing that every step he takes pisses them off even more as he claims to support them while crticizing at every opportunity.

Don't get me wrong here - unlike the jaded media who think a trip to Israel is mandatory and kissing Netanyahu's ass at every chance is obligatory, I disagree. The US should be pursuing a policy as an honest broker in the Middle East, but now it is too late to get any government in the area to believe that story. Even Hillary Clinton can't make that bitter pill go done anyone's throat. In fact, it seems that Bill Clinton actually has more influence currently on the world stage that the President. Something is amiss here for that to be happening. Many overseas are actually hoping for a new Clinton Era. Wonder how Hillary would work that out?

In any event, there are so many balls in the air for the US right now that something will be coming crashing down--bet it will be the economy again, since there will be less of a war to draw from the economy. only time will tell, but you can be sureit will not be the Obama administration that will tell you.

Secretary Janet Napolitano went to Capitol Hill this week to discuss the arms fiasco along the Mexican Border with Congressional committees. in effect, she was reporting that no real review of the whole matter had occured in DHS; a few 'sacrificial lambs' (primarily those that spoke to committees while DHS and Justice were stonewalling) were fired or resigned; but no real action had been taken to stop these transactions. In fact, both Holder, the Attorney General, and his US Attorney in Arizona tried to make the case these were good investigations (Of course, Holder later denied he knew anything and the White House was quick to say he 'mis-spoke' earlier). What trash for senior Federal officials.

The time has come to stop dangerous actions that bear no fruit, and start firing those who essentially commit illegal actions instead of supporting them. While I recognize that the Mexican drug trade needs to be curbed, you don't do it in a sane sociaety by providng them the guns to defend themselves.

So many significant events ha ve been happening since I last wrote. mostly, I have been busy working on a new book that should come out early in the year. Have also been re-editing my first book, Bernie Minihan's DIlemma, and a new version of that volume should reach the public about March 1st. Hope you will all respond to those new issues as you have in the past.

Well, let's see what is going on in the Middle East and Mediterranean area

The biggest news is probably the death of Mohamar Quaddafi in Libya (Have anybody ever figured out the real spelling of his name?). It came after a long series of battles across the desert, ending, for all practical purposes in Sirte as he was captured, beaten, and then carted away to an ambulance where a mysterious bullet ended up in his skull. One son and his Chief of Staff were also among the dead hauled out of a series of culvert pipers where they had been hiding after a strafing run from a NATO drone. Good riddance to Uncle Mohamar, but one has to wonder who the new strongman will be as the Transitional Council gets down to the real work of governing. Only time will tell, but Hillary Clinton is there to help them sort it all out.

There is Egypt, of course, which first threw out Mubbarak and then the generals simply started a new ruling council, promising elections that will either never come, or be limited to those candidates the generals want elected. Net plus up for the people - ZERO. great frevolt though.

Syria, who acts as if it doesn't care about the rest of cthe world continues to shoot and bomb its people to keep Assad in power, and, with the rest of the world simply looking on, seems to be winning at doing that. We, of course, issued a strong condemnation, but no real action.

Israel finally got back Sgt Shalit from Hamas. They in turn got a promise of 1,000 arabs being held in Israeli jails (They must have large jails with still another 4,000+ remaining in their jails). Several of the more prominent arab bombers were on the itial freedom list of over 400, with the rest to be released in stages. Wonder how long it will take Israel to find a pretext for not returning the rest, and, conversely, for Hamas to take another prisoner? Will israel now loosen its stranglehold on Gaza (as it promised months ago for the release of the soldier) or will it continue with its blockade and international piracy that continues to starve and kill Gazans? Again, only time will tell.

Abbas and the Palestinian Authority went to the UN seeking membership and creation of a Palestinian homeland. In this situation the facts really get perverse. The US has threatened a veto in the Security Council on full membership. The Israeli prime Minister, Netanyahu was quoted as saying negotiations were the answer to Palestinian statehood and not the UN. How quickly we forget that in 1946-7, when the Palestinians still held on to their land, Israelis asked for membership and a homeland, and the UN , led by the US ripped a space our of Palestine and called it Israel. The US and most of Europe that were decidedly anti-semitic at the time, embarassed by the Holocaust, and not wanting back their jewish emigres, could not wait to create the state. The Palestinians, many of them farmers on the land for generations were simply kicked out with no compensation. Now they want their mand back, and have at least a chance at doing so. The stupidity of politics at its best. Sort of reminds you of the plight of the American Indians doesn't it?

Virtually the entire Middle East is up in arms to some degree, but US policy seems to be in shambles. When the first outbreak of violence and oppostion occured in Tunisia, we started out by defending the regime and quickly switched to the insurgents as it became obvious that the Tunisian Government would fall. The same occured in Egypt, as we tried valiantly to support Mubarak until the vast crowds in the streets showed us a new light. Then we quickly froze Mubarak's assets and moved on. Hillary even visited with a scarf on her head in deference to the Islamic Fundamentalists.

The outcomes in those two countries seemed to be a new, and more democratic direction and Hillary Clinton could not wait to be part of new blooming democracies. In Tunisia, that view seems to be working, but in Egypt, that solution is far from certain. While a new, interim constitution is in place, the local villages are increasingly coming uner the control of the Imams, and Shariah Law is quickly forcing itself on the populations. That does not bode well for the US's desire for democracy.

In Yemen and Bahrain, the same scenario is playing out, as part of Yemen is now an "Islamin Emirate", whatever that is, and has created its own government. In Bahrain, home of the US Fifith Fleet, similar marches and riots are occuring, but the US has not publicly stated its view of that government, fearing, we would assume, for the safety of the deepwater port that houses the fleet. Political inconsistency makes us (the US) look like fools to the Arab world.

Nowhere, however, has there been more disorder in approach than in Libya. Here we started bombing Gadhafi's defense, convoys, and assaults, at least at first, and then allowed Gadhafi to move out against the rebels. Our excuse has been that we want to evaluate if al-Quada has infiltrated the rebel forces, mostly because there was a rumor that al_quada fighters had joined the opposition.. Of course they have! Get over it. We surrendered our primary position even before the French (How unusual) and now NATO has to do what we seemed not inclined to do in opposing Gadhafi. Instead, we ordered their embassy in the US closed. That really impacted on Gadhafi--he must be really afraid of us for that action.

The US diplomatic approach is in shambles, as Hillary CLinton goes from safe place to safe place to discuss the issues with other countries who also want to be in safe places. Meanwhile, the insurgents in these countries are doing what we don't have the guts to do--oppose tyranny and put their lives on the line to do so.

Seif al-Islam Gadhafi, has been not-so quietly offering proposals for him to take over from his father in exchange for peace in the country. You remember Seif, he indicated a few weeks back on international television that there would be a bloodbath in the cities if the rebels did not capitulate. Now he wants to be seen as a healer of his 'beloved country.' The rebels are not buying it, so don't expect a Gadhafi in power for too much longer.

There were explosions in the major Gadhafi compounds in Tripoli on the weekend, and it appeared to some media stationed there that either an aborted coup was moving or some action being taken to prevent more of the major players from deserting the Supreme leader. Who knows.

(In the rest of the Middle East...

Syria still has thousands marching in the streets each day. Bashar Assad has promised reforms and a new government, but the killing goes on. Soon, he will outreach his father's totals in killings.

Yemenhas apparently split into two countries--if you read the al-Quada press. an 'Islamic Emirate' has been formed from part of the country, while gassing of protesters and indiscriminate shooting still occurs daily in the streets. Now the Government has introduced a stronger version of tear gas that has, so far, injured over two hundred, and perhaps more. The US has now dropped any pretenses of supporting the Government.

In Oman,a group of terrorists took over an ammunition factory and blew themselves up--another result of good training which killed over 75 people outright. All in the cause of democracy.

Bahrain, meanwhile is still in the grip of their dictator/strongman who has banned the opposition and closed some newspapers. it does not seem to be stopping the people however, and one has to wonder what are the next steps here. The US carefully watching this nation, since the Fifth Fleet is based there in the harbor.

And in Israel..

Lots going on in that peace-loving nation. With the palestinians calling for the General Assembly to grant their their own nation, Israel is broadly hinting that it will simply annex the West Bank and other lands where vthere are mixed settlements, and the palestinians will get nothing--the rest of the world be damned. And, oh yes, we need more munitions, planes, and bombs from the US.

Netanyahu, the Israeli PM is now demanding the US abrogate the Goldstone report on the atrocities in Gaza since Lord Goldstone has revised his personal view of what happened. Not sure why Goldstone changed, but the numbers in the cemeteries have not, and the deaths are still attributable to Israel.

Iran is quiet, but still sending funding and fighters wherever it will help overturn governments and create fundamentalist regimes.

Pakistan releases the CIA Contractor US had declared a Diplomat to hide his actual status

CNN News reported that "CIA contractor Raymond Davis has been released from jail in Pakistan after the families of two men he killed in January forgave him, a government official said Wednesday. Punjab province law minister Rana Sanaullah first told Pakistani media that the victims' families did not want to press charges and added soon after that Davis was free to go. The statement came just hours after the American was charged with murder in connection with the shootings."

"The U.S. Embassy in Pakistan declined to answer repeated CNN questions about whether Davis had left jail or where he is now. According to Davis, the January 27 shooting occurred after two men attacked him as he drove through a busy Lahore neighborhood, the U.S. Embassy says."

The US State Department had argued for weeks that Davis was a diplomat--implying that he was a Federal employee and entitled to immunity.

The Situation in Bahrain remains grim at best

Meanwhile, Reuters reported that in Bahrain, "At least five people were killed and hundreds wounded when police cleared demonstrators from Manama's Pearl Square on Wednesday in an attempt to halt weeks of popular unrest. The violence, so soon after the Saudi-led intervention, will further embarrass Washington, which had urged dialogue to tackle Bahrain's problems and says Riyadh did not consult it before moving troops to the island where the U.S. Fifth Fleet is based."

"That may be the case, but U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates visited Bahrain at the weekend. To many Arabs the timing smacks of U.S. complicity in King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa's decision to invite the Saudis in and declare martial law."

"That will create a narrative that does not make the U.S. look good," said Shadi Hamid of the Doha Brookings Center. "It puts the U.S. on one side of the conflict, which is with the status quo and the Bahraini ruling family."

Non-Arab Iran, which has in the past laid claim to Bahrain, has denounced what it sees as U.S.-backed Gulf Arab meddling. "It is not possible to stop a popular uprising by using armed forces of other countries," said Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. "These are ugly and failing actions."

"The clampdown in Bahrain suggests that a conservative wing of the ruling family, backed by its Saudi counterparts, has won out over reformers led by Crown Prince Sheikh Salman bin Hamad al-Khalifa, who last month offered dialogue with the Shi'ite opposition and said protesters could stay in Pearl Square."

"A main demand of Bahrain's pro-democracy movement has been the resignation of conservative Prime Minister Sheikh Khalifa bin Salman al-Khalifa, who has held his post for 40 years. Bahraini Shi'ites have long complained of discrimination in housing and jobs, charges the government rejects. The protesters had sought to cast their movement as national, not sectarian"

And in Libya...

Voice of America reports that "Forces loyal to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi attacked rebels in the western city of Misrata with heavy artillery Wednesday, killing at least four people. Witnesses say the rebel-held city has come under attack from the east and south. Government forces have also pounded the eastern city of Ajdabiya, but reports from rebels there say they have repelled pro-Gadhafi advances and are in almost total control of the city. The rebels disputed a Libyan state television report Tuesday that pro-government forces had regained control of Ajdabiya."

"The city is close to the opposition stronghold of Benghazi and would give access to roads leading to the opposition's base if retaken by pro-Gadhafi forces. The lightly armed and poorly organized opposition fighters have not been able to stop the advance of the Libyan army with its aircraft, tanks and heavy weapons. Over the past week, the previous rebel advance to the west has been pushed back nearly 200 kilometers."

Finally, the White House...

In the White House, it was business as usual, with president Obama urging people to stop filling out brackets for march Madness (The NCAA Tournament) to contribute to charities supporting Jpanaese re-construction efforts. No mention of Libya today.

It is coming up on a week after Rep. Peter King (R-NY), started his investigation on the radicalization of the American Muslim population with the first hearings that made him look completely foolish. At least Senator Joe McCarthy, in the early 50's, waved a few pieces of paper in the air which he claimed were lists of communists and their sympathizers. King could not even do that.

A New Gallup Poll indicates that 52 percent of Americans say these hearings are appropriate, though support is split along party lines. Sixty-nine percent of Republicans say the hearings are the right thing, while only 40 percent of Democrats say they are appropriate. Independents' views track closely to the national average at 51 percent supporting the hearings. Overall, 49 percent of Democrats polled on Tuesday say the hearings are not appropriate, compared to 42 percent of independents and 23 percent of Republicans. From that perspective, King has support for his views.

However, what King did not do--favoring a more general, sensationalist view--was to clearly define the purpose of his committee hearings. Those hearings should be on radicalization of Americans across a number of groups who preach hate and destruction--including those terrorist groups that happen to be Muslim. Instead he painted the Muslim community separately with a broad brush and that hurts everyone--not those he should have identified and exposed.

Rep. King has a long history of shooting off his mouth--starting hearings, or making claims, and eventually letting them peter out after he gets the publicity he seeks. That is what these hearing are really all aobut--publicity for mr. King. if he had the perspective, he could do good things with his hearings--but I will bet he won't, and the results of his efforts will be meaningless--except perhaps to get himself re-elected.

It is beginning to look like the US has no intention of doing much more than let Secretary Hillary shoot off her mouth but take no real concrete actions. We did more against Iraq, and are doing against the Mexican durg lords that we have done to provide concrete assistance to the Libyans opposed to Ghaddafi. This kind of stance (Common to Democrats) is even weaker than the tepid response of Clinton the adulterer while he was President and Iraq and Afghanistan first came across the horizon.

We are quickly looking like fools in the world space and it really needs to stop.

Mark Thompson of TIme Magazine, in the current issue of his blog, reports, "Many of war's most important combat elements -- like time and momentum -- don't show up in order-of-battle calculations. That's why the international dithering over launching a no-fly zone over Libya is now all but OBE -- overcome by events -- even as France and the Arab League call for one. The U.N. began discussing the topic in earnest on Monday, even as Muammar Gaddafi's warplanes continued to pound rebel positions.

Politico is reporting, "Hillary Clinton arrived in Paris on Monday, starting a week of efforts by the secretary of state to demonstrate U.S. support for pro-democracy forces in Libya, Egypt and Tunisia.

While in Paris, Clinton is set to meet with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and other European officials to discuss the instability in Libya as leader Muammar Qadhafi’s supporters regain some of their lost territory in the battle there. Sarkozy’s government was the first to recognize an anti-Qadhafi interim governing council as Libya’s legitimate government, a move the United States is considering.

Now, it is true that Obama has a lot on his plate right now, with the major budget battles looming (with a decidedly unfriendly House, and a mixed-bag Senate where even his own party often leaves him hanging), along with the situations in Libya and Japan, but then, that's what he gets the big bucks to do. he needs to make decisions that are not slippery and indecisive, but more focused on actual solutions and well-thought out actions.

Michael Falcone, on the ABC News Website, says today, "As the budget deal-making continues in Washington this week, the White House is facing growing pressure on a different front: how tough to get with Libya. Over the weekend, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney responded to the Arab League’s endorsement of a no-fly zone over Libya without specifically addressing whether the Obama administration would support it."

“We welcome this important step by the Arab League, which strengthens the international pressure on Gadhafi and support Libyan people,” Carney said. “The international community is unified in sending a clear message that the violence in Libya must stop and that the Gadhafi regime must be held accountable.”

"But how far will the White House go and when? Libya is fast becoming a situation with profound political consequences here at home, as ABC’s Jonathan Karl noted on “This Week”: “If Gadhafi is still in power next year, if Libya is still a mess, this will be a central issue for Republicans. They will say this is Exhibit A of what happens when you have a foreign policy where America does not show leadership. You're already seeing it with some on the Hill saying, look, the French are leading on this. Where is America?” (More from yesterday’s “This Week” roundtable:"

The more we talk (The administration that is), and the less we do, the more Ghaddafi is reinforced, and the opposition will be crushed over time with that swcar on our collective backs. The US is already hated by most of the Middle East, and we are adding country after country as we practive 'diplomacy' in that area.

Representative Peter King (R-NY) has opened his hearings on what he perceives as growning Islamic Extremism in America. His initial witnesses, three democratic collegues and the representatives of the Committ on islamic-American Relations (CAIR). They quickly became reminiscent of the McCarthy hearings of the 1950's.

The New York Daily News, reporting on the opening testimory of Representative Ellis (D-Minn) reacted this way, " The only Muslim member of Congress shed tears as he ripped Long Island Rep. Pete King's controversial hearings into the radicalization of U.S. Muslims as un-American.

Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) was overcome with emotion Thursday as he invoked a heroic NYPD cadet who was smeared for his religion. Ellison recounted how cadet Mohammed Salman Hamdani, who died trying to rescue people after the Sept. 11 attacks, was accused of being in league with the terrorists because he was a Muslim who vanished on 9/11.

"After the tragedy, some people tried to smear his character" because of his religion, Ellison said of Hamdani, who was posthumously declared a hero. It was only when his remains were identified that these lies were exposed. He gave his life for other Americans."

Earlier, Ellison had called the hearings "unjust" for singling out an entire community for the evildoing of a few. He said King's hearings "will increase suspicion" about Muslim Americans, "making us all a little less safe." Ellison's unexpectedly emotional testimony silenced the hearing room, but King appeared to be unmoved by his wrenching words.

The Republican chairman of the Homeland Security Committee opened the hearings with a passionate defense. "Let me be clear today that I remain convinced that these hearings must go forward," he said. King has faced a surge of outrage from critics who say he's mounted a witch hunt against Muslims.

Richard Cohen, in an OpEd piece in the Washington Post, thought differently. "Unlike Moses Herzog, the eponymous character of the Saul Bellow novel "Herzog," I do not feverishly compose mad letters to public figures and sinister government agencies (the IRS, for instance). But I often yell back at the TV set. This happened Sunday when CNN's Candy Crowley asked Rep. Peter King what his hearings into Muslim radicalism are really about. "Good luck, Candy," I yelled, having asked the same question of King's staff just the day before. Here, I am sure, is the answer: The hearings are about Pete King." We could not agree more.

Roll Call, the Capital Hill Political rag, calls the hearings a "Witch Hunt", saying "Hearings on the radicalization of Muslim Americans set to begin today in the House have provoked a volatile national debate that is spilling into the election cycle. Threatening phone calls made this week to Rep. Peter King, chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, were the latest sign that tensions are high as the New York Republican spearheads a probe into the threat of domestic terrorism."

"Battle lines are already being drawn. On one side are Muslim advocacy and civil rights groups that call the investigation a targeted witch hunt and liken it to Joe McCarthy’s anti-communism hearings. On the other are national security and tea party activists who argue that the inquiry is a necessary first step toward protecting Americans."

"King told Roll Call that he initiated the probe to highlight what he says is a rising threat of radicalization in Muslim communities. The hearings could stretch out over the next year, prolonging the topic just long enough to make Islam a wedge issue in the presidential primaries. “We’re starting to see increased anti-Muslim rhetoric and bigotry that seems timed for the political season,” said Farhana Khera, executive director of Muslim Advocates. “The Republican Party is increasingly painting itself as the party of hate and divisiveness.”

"As candidates travel around the country testing the waters for presidential runs, the hearings could also revive last year’s polarized debate on a proposed Islamic center, which critics dubbed a mosque, near the site of ground zero in New York City. In the midterm elections, some conservative candidates used that issue to generate cash and attention for their campaigns."

These hearings will undoubetdly draw out, much as the mccarthy hearings did to try to rerail the Eisenhower Administration. However, in this case, it is so patently obvious that this is a circus that even an average person should take what is said with a grain of wild salt. We should not be painting an entire ethnic group for the sins of a few, or, at least, if he wants to do that the list should be expanded to others who are similarly committing senseless crimes and atrocities--many of which we shower with foriegn aid.

The trash continues over the forced resignation of Fred Grandy from the Grandy Group on WMAL, a Washington DC Talk Station. Atlas Shrugs, a well-known blog, in its latest front page, says,

"WMAL-AM in Washington, DC gave morning talk show host Fred Grandy an “offer he couldn’t accept” – don’t talk about Islam so much and leave your popular wife at home. The Friday discussions between Fred and “Mrs. Fred” about the Shariah threat to American freedoms and institutions were one of the most popular parts of the program."

"Grandy refused to meet those conditions and his show was cancelled. Now WMAL comes out with a different version of the incident everytime they get a call. The bottom line is this WMAL has become the first Shariah-compliant radio station in America. They speak about radical Islam very gingerly and they have no time for opinionated women like Mrs. Fred. Call them today and let them know you support the Constitution and not Shariah."

A number of writers have suggested that they support the station, and they have that right. Fred did 'resign', but only after an insult to his wife. How many have that much gumption these days?

Accuracy in Media asked some pointed questions on its blog as well. "Washington, D.C. radio station WMAL is once again being accused of firing a popular talk show host because of his criticism of radical Muslims. The station, a major source of news and information for the nation’s capital, claims that popular morning host Fred Grandy resigned on his own, but Grandy tells AIM that he was essentially forced to leave after his wife, who is also outspoken about radical Islam, was cut from the program."

"The growing controversy over Grandy’s departure has resulted in some Grandy supporters charging the station with being “Sharia-compliant,” a reference to Islamic law, and with bending under pressure from the Council on American Islamic-Relations (CAIR), a Muslim lobbying organization that combats what it calls “Islamophobia” in the media"

Let's listen to what Catherine Grandy really said. here's the YouTube broadcast video. Listen to it for yourself .

The Washington Times, in its editorial pages today, posed the question, and it raises interesting issues. The Dems were hot to call Goerge W Bush to account, and a number suggested he might be a war criminal for his actions in both Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as his continued detentions at Gitmo. At the time, there were real concerns that he (Bush) might be grabbed in some foreign country, like Spain, that think they can prosecute anyone for anything throughout the world.

Not we have Barack Hussein Obama who has rescinded his previous orders to close Gitmo, decided to return to the flawed commissions, and might even just keep those at the detention facility forever without any formal charges--most of which would be thrown out by the real courts anyway over torture and delays in prosecution. He calls this protecting us from terrorism. Add to this his order that native-bron American citizens can be killed overseas by the CIA because they are 'suspected' of terror activities, and you have a real mess. What comes next?

The politics that pervades America today is slowly dragging us down into the sewers that breed contempt and aversion to law. Obama's Justice Department is, at the least, worse than the Ashcroft regime and can't find good, ethical lawyers to staff its senior positions. Stay tuned--it is bound to get worse at this administration gets closer to the next election.

Keeping Guantanamo open breaks the last (And biggest) of his campaign promises

As he has so often in the past, Obama has taken expediency over truth with the American Public on the Guantanamo issue.

Let's look at his record.

As CNN reported on January 22, 2009, "Promising to return America to the "moral high ground" in the war on terrorism, President Obama issued three executive orders Thursday to demonstrate a clean break from the Bush administration, including one requiring that the Guantanamo Bay detention facility be closed within a year. "

"During a signing ceremony at the White House, Obama reaffirmed his inauguration pledge that the United States does not have "to continue with a false choice between our safety and our ideals."

"The president said he was issuing the order to close the facility in order to "restore the standards of due process and the core constitutional values that have made this country great even in the midst of war, even in dealing with terrorism."

The administration put the military trials on hold for two years so that it could review the status of the 170 or so remaining detainees and make changes in the military tribunals, including rules of evidence and a review process for the detainees. That was after the promise to close Gitmo within a year.

That quickly became a hollow statement as the administration was embarassed several times over trials in Federal Courts--cancelling the show trial that Eric Holder, the Attorney General, devised foir New York City, only to cancel it after a hugh backlash from the City, The State of new York, and the Congress. Eventually, Obama had to eat crow when the 2010 budget resultion included language to prevent the use of Federal funds to close the facility.

Now come the new executive order, which revereses everything Obama had promised.

As NPR News reports, "The order lends formal permission to the policy by which the U.S. has held detainees at the prison — detainees who, in most cases, have not been charged or convicted but are deemed too dangerous to release. It also ends a two-year ban on the use of military commissions to try suspected terrorists."

"Obama said Monday that his new policies will help "bring terrorists to justice." But the new policy statement wasn't much more than a recognition of fact and frustration. Congress has forbidden the administration to bring terrorism suspects from Guantanamo onto American soil for trial or imprisonment and also has made it harder to send detainees to other countries."

"Obama has said he is still committed to closing the prison and trying terrorists in civilian courts. But Monday's announcement made it clear that he would not be able to fulfill one of his most famous promises: "I have said repeatedly that I intend to close Guantanamo, and will follow through on that," he said on 60 Minutes shortly after he was elected."

"This has turned out very badly for them," says Ben Wittes, an expert on law and terrorism at the Brookings Institution. The executive order "begins a process of breaking the paralysis that has gripped the administration on a subject that was, two years ago, supposed to be one of their early and very vivid accomplishments," Wittes says.

The order also acknowledges that the prison population has probably reached an irreducible minimum, he says. It's "an effort to create a process for long-term detainees at Guantanamo, whom they are not going to be letting go anytime soon and they hope to be eventually moving to the U.S. when they close Guantanamo," he says. "But that doesn't seem to be happening, either."

The administration put the military trials on hold for two years so that it could review the status of the 170 or so remaining detainees and make changes in the military tribunals, including rules of evidence and a review process for the detainees. Now we go back to th4e commissions where the alleged terrorists can be tried, conviceted and sentenced without any right to even see the evidence against them.

Certainly sounds a lot like George Bush to me.

I have no problem with keeing Gitmo open--it is probably the best place for detainees. What I do have a problem with is the constant backtracking on virtually every issue Obama raised in his campaign and promised to fix. Politics as usual.